UK Risks Blackouts Without Nuclear Strategy

[FBaggins]

The U.K. is heading for power blackouts within five years unless Prime Minister David Cameron devises a better strategy to build new nuclear plants, the former government’s chief scientific adviser said.

“The risk of the lights going off is very serious,” Sir David King, who advised Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s administrations through 2007, said in an interview. “At the moment the industry sees an amber light on nuclear new build. We need a much clearer vision of the long-term future.”

...snip...

Blackouts in Five Years
King said power outages could occur as early as 2017 as old nuclear, oil and coal-fired power stations are closed because not enough is being done to replace them. The school's study shows Britain can’t meet its goal of cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 without ramping up nuclear power and electrifying both transport and heating.

...snip...

‘Expensive’ Renewables King said that switching all generation to renewables would be “enormously expensive” because everything would need to be backed up by equivalent gas-fired capacity for when the wind doesn’t blow. The power grid could support a maximum of 20 percent large-scale wind power, alongside smaller turbines, solar panels and geothermal heat pumps fitted to homes, he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-14/u-dot-k-dot-renewable-energy-push-may-prevent-electricity-crisis

Humanist David King, Chief scientific advisor to Tony Blair (Labour) and Gordon Brown (Labour) and outspoken in the fight to combat climate change will no doubt be traduced shortly as just another conservative republican.

[leveymg]

1. The North Sea is a big, windy place. Seems that the potential is there, but barely exploited

I am really, really skeptical of the following:

The power grid could support a maximum of 20 percent large-scale wind power

There may be some parts of the inlands where because of transmission losses and local conditions WP is not practical, but most of the population is on the coasts.

Yes, it will be expensive to convert, but it has to be done, even if the nuclear industry, BP and the other big energy cos. hate the prospect.

[FBaggins]

3. I think you're misreading that.

He doesn't mean that the grid can't physically handle more than that amount of electricity. He means that the system can't handle more than a certain amount of power coming from variable sources.

As such, it's pretty much in line with what the academic estimates have been saying all along. A bit higher in fact since he's talking exclusively about large-scale wind and not variable renewables in general.

[leveymg]

4. Offshore wind isn't really that variable.

I agree there are peak demand and surge problems to be worked out, but like a lot of things, you have to throw money at it. Take it out of BP's profits - they're variable, but doing fine recently.

[kristopher]

6. There are no "academic estimates" saying that

None.

[FBaggins]

8. Of course there are. You've provided them.

You just play the three monkeys when you come to that part.

[kristopher]

9. There are no "academic estimates" saying what you claim

None. You are parroting PamW.

[PamW]

14. Because it's the truth

Kris,

You are doing what you always do - you "cherry pick" what you want to believe and not.

You don't deal with scientific realities.

The issue with renewables and grid stability has been reported in numerous studies. Some of the very first studies showed the derivation as to why the grid becomes unstable. However, you probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

You probably have never heard of the "telegrapher's equation" which tells us how energy propagates down a lossy transmission line.

Facts are stubborn things
-- John Adams

PamW

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Not that it can't be done...

...just that it gets too expensive. Which is pretty much the same thing in politics, outside of the military.

[kristopher]

11. There are no "academic estimates" that say that either.

None.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Oh kris, you should really look where you're going. You'll walk in to something.

http://www.businessgreen.com/digital_assets/4177/Powerful_Targets.pdf
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-windpower.pdf

[bananas]

2. FUD.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Fear, uncertainty and doubt

Fear, uncertainty and doubt , frequently
abbreviated as FUD, is a tactic used in sales ,
marketing , public relations , [1][2] politics and
propaganda.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence
perception by disseminating negative and
dubious or false information. An individual firm,
for example, might use FUD to invite
unfavorable opinions and speculation about a
competitor's product; to increase the general
estimation of switching costs among current
customers; or to maintain leverage over a
current business partner who could potentially
become a rival.

The term originated to describe disinformation
tactics in the computer hardware industry but
has since been used more broadly. [3] FUD is a
manifestation of the appeal to fear.

snip...

[TheWraith]

5. Glad you finally recognize what you've been doing all these years.

Realizing you have a problem is the first step to correcting it.

[kristopher]

7. It is emotional blackmail

Remember poor Germany and the massive blackouts and power shortages should they shut down those 8 reactors?

It has become a constant cry from the nuclear industry. It also shows how they would behave if they actually had the market power everywhere that they have in France.

How the UK is handing control of its energy future to France

'There is no alternative' nuclear advocacy allows energy companies to manipulate UK policy

Aside from the pro-nuclear zealots, most protagonists in favour of nuclear power rely on "there is no alternative" advocacy – because of climate change, energy security, the "lights going out", we need nuclear, the argument runs. Such thinking is alive and well within the coalition government to the extent that ministers are no longer prepared to listen to contrary evidence.


As a result, UK energy policy is being manipulated and subverted to make it possible for French nuclear power companies (EDF and Areva) to start building four new reactors in the UK – two at Hinkley Point in Somerset and two at Sizewell in Suffolk.


Along with three other former directors of Friends of the Earth, with experience going right back to the 1970s, I am very familiar with the record of the nuclear industry in pulling the wool over the eyes of both senior officials and ministers. A recent report reveals how the government's own analysis shows that the UK could achieve all its energy objectives without new nuclear – through investment in energy efficiency, renewables, combined heat and power, and grid upgrades.


The authors reserve judgment in their conclusion about how it is that the evidence has been so comprehensively fiddled – "We don't like conspiracy theories, but either it's a monumental series of mistakes, or the nuclear lobby has got control of the Whitehall machine" – but personally I am in no doubt that it's the latter. As a result, we are about to hand over control of Britain's future energy policy and climate security to the French government – as I demonstrate with Charles Secrett, Tom Burker and Tony Juniper in a note to the prime minister today.


It is our belief that the two German operators ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/13/uk-energy-future-france

[Nihil]

13. No offence but your comment is wrong.

> Humanist David King, Chief scientific advisor to Tony Blair (Labour) and
> Gordon Brown (Labour) and outspoken in the fight to combat climate change
> will no doubt be traduced shortly as just another conservative republican.
>

Tony Blair was Labour in name only. In action he was further to the right than
several self-declared Conservative PMs. (In some actions he would be correctly
classed as a full-blown US Republican.)

Gordon Brown was closer to a genuine Labour person but was still too beholden
to the corporations and the 1% to be protected from the label of "conservative"
(albeit with a little "c" rather than Blair's most definite big "C&quot .

Finally, David King himself is fairly neutral - he has had his conservative moments
as well as his progressive ones - but I'm somewhat dubious of this pronouncement
and the report being produced by his group


It's also worth noting this from the article:
> The comments contrast with findings by Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
> which last month concluded that growth in renewable energy will prevent
> the U.K. from suffering an electricity crisis. Britain will build more than 30GW
> of capacity by the end of 2016, two-thirds of it in solar, wind and biomass
> and the rest largely fired by natural gas, according to the researcher.

Whilst I'm "not wonderfully pleased" by 10GW of new natural gas, the 20GW of
new renewables is consistent with other [s]guesses[/s] projections. King's school's study,
on the other hand, is artificially justifying "ramping up nuclear power" by the weird
option of "electrifying both transport and heating" ... heating???

Take out the brand new tactic of calling for electrical heating and I wonder how
the electricity demand can justify additional nuclear power.