The UK Climate Change Act & Its Implications For Energy Supply

By Paul Homewood

thI have previously looked at the potential costs of the Climate Change Act, for instance here. But now I want to look at its potential impact on energy supply.

Let’s start with the basic targets that have been set for emissions reduction. The Act commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels, by 2050. Five Year Carbon Budgets are set to plan in more detail how this is to be achieved, and currently these are in force for up to 2027.

Although the First Budget for 2008-12 already shows a saving of 23%, most of this occurred long before the Act, partly because of a mass switch from coal to gas fired electricity during the 1990’s, and partly because of the decline of manufacturing in the UK. The Fourth Budget demands a further reduction of 35% from 2008-12 levels.

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47614/3751-carbon-plan-executive-summary-dec-2011.pdf

In this post, I will be concentrating on electricity generation. I will be looking at the implications for heating and transport in a future post. Let’s then look at how the UK’s power is generated at the moment.

UK Electricity Generation – 2012

TWh
Coal 143
Oil 4
Gas 100
Nuclear 71
Hydro 5
Wind 19
Solar 1
Bio 15
Others 5
Total 363

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends

It is worthwhile noting at this stage that, although CO2 emissions have been going down since 1990, electricity supply has been going up. Since 1990, demand for power has increased by 44 TWh, or 14%. All of the increase has been from domestic consumers, as the use of labour saving devices, computers and electronic equipment have soared. As population is forecast to increase substantially in coming decades, it seems highly unlikely that demand for electricity won’t continue to grow, despite government hopes for energy saving.

However, leaving this “little” problem aside, let’s look at how the power generation sector might look by 2030, based on government scenarios.

[A note here – the government have made clear that there are various scenarios, and they are not committed to any particular one. Therefore their, and my, numbers are by necessity ballpark. All my calculations, though, are based on the government’s own assumptions]

For the latest Fourth Carbon Budget, the government has set several targets of what needs to happen by 2027. There are also certain changes, which have already been set in motion. In summary:-

  • Approximately half of the coal fired capacity will have closed by 2015, because of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. Given the governments’ stated objective of reducing emissions in 2023-27 period to 16% of 2009 levels, it seems highly unlikely there will be any scope for coal fired generation by 2027, (unless with CCS).
  • The above also applies to oil.
  • Out of the nine nuclear power stations currently operating, only one, Sizewell B, is scheduled to still be operational after 2030. The others are all due to shut by 2023, or earlier.
  • The planned switch from conventional heating and transport, into “low carbon” alternatives,(i.e. electric cars, heat pumps etc) will significantly increase demand for electricity. The Committee on Climate Change estimates an increase of 30% between 2020 and 2030. This would imply an increase from 363 TWh to 472 TWh p.a.
  • The demand for low carbon heat, in particular, will mainly impact at times of peak demand, i.e. winter months and daytime hours. By 2050, DECC have estimated we may need as much as double today’s electricity capacity to deal with peak demand.
  • Government plans assume that Carbon Storage, CCS, could provide 10GW by 2030, about a quarter of current supply. However, the technology for this still has not got off the ground, and planned pilot projects have not yet materialised. It is therefore extremely unsafe to rely on this technology.
  • Plans also assume that 15GW of nuclear capacity will come on stream, which represents about ten reactors. The government is currently in negotiations with EDF to build two of these, but these have been bogged down for sometime now. There is no guarantee that they will be successful, or whether the price will be affordable. Given the long lead time in building nuclear, it looks increasingly unlikely whether all ten reactors can be built, on satisfactory terms, in time for the Fourth Carbon Budget.
  • Gas produces about half the CO2 as coal does, so currently contributes about 25% of emissions. The Carbon Plan aims for a reduction in emissions from total electricity generation of between 75% and 84%. In other words, based on the lower number, gas can continue to contribute its current level of 100TWh. On the higher target, it would need to be reduced to to 74TWh.

So, taking account of these factors, I have laid out below how the UK’s electricity supply arrangements might look by 2030. There are two scenarios:-

1) BEST –  based on the government’s key assumptions.

2) LIKELY – what I would regard as the most likely outcome, and certainly the only one that could safely be used for planning purposes.

Projected UK Electricity Generation  TWh – 2030

BEST LIKELY
Coal 0 0
Oil 0 0
Gas 100 100
Nuclear 131 50
Hydro 5 5
Bio 30 30
Others 5 5
CCS 80 0
Sub Total 351 190
Balance To Fill 121 282
TOTAL REQUIRED 472 472

So even under the best case, there is a hole of 121 TWh to fill, about a third of the electricity currently generated, and logically this can only come from wind/solar.

Solar can be ignored, as it makes such a small contribution currently, and simply is not reliable. But what about wind?

To produce 121 TWh from wind, even on the best scenario, would be a sixfold increase on current levels, an increase of 102 TWh. In the last three years, wind generation has increased by 3TWh per year, so at this rate, it would take 34 years to build up to 121 TWh. On the “most likely case”, we would need an extra 16TWh added each year, something that appears to be totally unrealistic.

Then, of course, there is the question of backup capacity. Wind often operates at less than 10% of it’s nameplate capacity, so, in practice, most of the 121 TWh, (or 282 TWh), will need to be matched by an equivalent amount of backup capacity. In other words, gas.

Unless we are prepared for the spare capacity on the grid to be cut to dangerous levels, there would need to be at least a doubling of gas capacity, all to be left idly spinning when the wind blows. And all of this assumes the best case.

Under the most likely scenario, we appear to be entering La La Land. Energy from wind would need to multiply 19-fold, and all in the space of 10 years or so. And to back it up, we would need to quadruple the current capacity of gas fired power stations.

Generators will not be prepared to put down this capacity without being generously paid for the privilege, and the Energy Bill includes provision for a Capacity Market mechanism, which will offer compensation to suppliers, to be paid for by consumers. Whether even that will be enough to procure the long term investment required remains doubtful.

Either way, consumers can look forward to massively increased bills and energy rationing.

References

1) Electricity Statistics from DECC

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-section-5-energy-trends

2) The Carbon Plan

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47614/3751-carbon-plan-executive-summary-dec-2011.pdf

3) Committee on Climate Change Executive Summary

http://archive.theccc.org.uk/aws2/4th%20Budget/4th-Budget_Exec%20Summary.pdf

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JohnOfEnfield

I cannot for the life of me understand when DECC think that “a miracle will happen”.

Ian W

We appear to be entering La La Land.
That just about sums it up.
I believe that if lead times are taken into account there is no possibility of the UK maintaining stable power supplies there will just not be sufficient generating capacity. The costs will also be rising as the subsidies will continue to grow with the number of subsidy farms being built.
In UK in just the first two weeks of March 2013, more than 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty. . That is more people dying of cold in two weeks that died on the UK roads in a year.
Next winter will be worse.
What does it take to UK government ministers and MPs to take action? How many people have to die in UK before these people in power stop trying to make money out of ‘green energy’ and realize the irreversible damage they are doing?

Peter Miller

UK energy policy is so goofy that it is almost unbelievable and you just could not make it up. Then you look at the country’s political leaders: Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, all card carrying greenies with little concept of how the real world functions or of any science.
Historians will look back in awe and wonder how the UK could be so stupid over its energy policies.
What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?

UK is a services and high-added value manufacturing economy. Thant means that reliability of supply is vital, else computers and servers go off, and the economy will suffer huge losses, even from a single blackout.
Today in FT: “UK living standards drop to lowest level in a decade” – doubling of energy bills, already at ridiculous levels, will reduce UK to a third world country, as large sways of people already do not use their heating, and higher bills will make the poor chopping trees to cook on, and reduce the middle to the poor.
As I understand, this week UK Parliament passed law by which they expect cut power consumption by 40%.
If UK sticks to the course set by the Parliament, indeed, it is time to abandon ship, as I can see this country completely destroying itself.

Bloke down the pub

I have tried making my views on this clear to the DECC but they are so obviously living in a land of make believe that I gave up in despair.

Ian W

Mi> Peter Miller says:
June 13, 2013 at 10:55 am
What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?
Especially when the population realizes that:
1. It was deliberately done,
2. The politicians have been left in no doubt that the power grid will go down, and
3. Many of the members of the government have made these decisions in order to line their own pockets.

michel

“As I understand, this week UK Parliament passed law by which they expect cut power consumption by 40%.”
No, that is not correct. The Green Party did propose that as an amendment but it was not part of the bill as passed. The fact that they proposed it shows how mad the UK has become. Of what conceivable benefit to the UK would such an action be?
The Greens in the UK however are totally insane and have started trying to destroy the country along with the environment in orde to save it.

William Abbott

I’ve heard they plan to expand bio-mass. Can they convert some of the coal stations to wood and bump up their bio-mass number? You have it static. I’m not saying anything about the plan makes sense; its obviously insane. But Bio-mass is considered a renewable and the coal plants can be converted – couldn’t some of that 282 Twh deficit be met with bio-mass?

For the National Grid to work it must hold in reserve the maximum theoretical power delivery, which for the UK is currently ~70GW. An all renewable grid is completely impossible in a country like the UK lacking truly massive hydro resources for energy storage. A decarbonized future in the UK without a large nuclear base load is nonsense. In the short term only fossil fuels can dispatch sufficient power to handle the random intermitancy of wind power. Gas is the only resource which can be held in reserve to quickly meet peak demand. Wind is randomly intermittant and if it were to reach more than ~10% peak capacity would threaten the grid with complete collapse as its output fluctuates so wildly. Nor is energy storage on the scale needed feasible, since otherwise we would already have it.
To quote from a recent Danish newspaper article.

The very fact that the wind power system, that has been imposed so expensively upon the consumers, can not and does not achieve the simple objectives for which it was built, should be warning the energy establishment, at all levels, of the considerable gap between aspiration and reality.
Denmark needs a proper debate and a thorough re-appraisal of the technologies that need to be invented, developed and costed before forcing the country into a venture that shows a high risk of turning into an economic black hole.

The whole energy debate in the UK has become so politicized that it is almost impossible to hold a rational discussion. There are two arguments to de-carbonize energy. The first argument relies on the existential threat of climate change. Independent of whether this is a real threat or not, it still makes no sense for a small country like UK to act unilaterally because it alone can have no effect whatsoever on the climate. So until there is some international agreement the government should not hinder our citizens and industries with very high energy costs all to no avail. The second argument to de-carbonizemore makes more sense. This is that eventually fossil fuels will run out and the world will then have to rely on non-carbon sources, so an effort now is worthwhile in the long run. However we likely have at least 100 years before this becomes an urgent issue. In the meantime there is a related argument that the UK should not have to rely on ever more expensive fossil fuels from unstable countries, and renewables help in this respect. Investment in renewables in this picture is better viewed as an insurance policy against “risks” from climate change and uncertain energy supplies. What insurance premium would you be willing to pay ?
The premium is just too high for Wind Power – A highly unstable National Grid costing 28p/Kwh for wind/gas to insure against a possibly beneficial 1-3 deg.c temperature rise. With another lousy summer developing here in the UK – a bit of warming would be a vote winner.
How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering ?

I suspect that either the plan will be violated or people will leave. Sorry to see this happen in the UK. As Governor Rick Perry would say, Texas has plenty of energy and electricity. Please move to Texas.

Ian W

William Abbott says:
June 13, 2013 at 11:25 am
I’ve heard they plan to expand bio-mass. Can they convert some of the coal stations to wood and bump up their bio-mass number? You have it static. I’m not saying anything about the plan makes sense; its obviously insane. But Bio-mass is considered a renewable and the coal plants can be converted – couldn’t some of that 282 Twh deficit be met with bio-mass?

Well yes – but not in any ,logical way. They are converting DRAX one of the larger coal powered generating stations to burn woodchips. They are importing these woodchips from the USA – shiploads of them. All this while UK has still got lots of coal.
And government call the UKIP swivel eyed loons !

u.k(us)

Bloke down the pub says:
June 13, 2013 at 11:05 am
I have tried making my views on this clear to the DECC but they are so obviously living in a land of make believe that I gave up in despair.
===================
Don’t despair.
The populace is beginning to wake-up 🙂

Dave_G

Sadly the crop of politicians responsible for this madness won’t actually be prominent when the SHTF. Like Bliar, they cosset the limelight when the going is good and then feed off the population in their decline. We, the people, will never get the redress we deserve.

Bill Treuren

the only sane way to back this up is with shale gas for the spinning capacity.
they need massive grants for that green project, and urgently, it can stand alongside the wind farms.
clearly if you build the wind farms at massive cost the small addition of drilling say 100,000 shale wells and building dozens of combined cycle gas station is chicken feed.
everybody needs to relax, but as a suggestion drill the wells and build the CC plants first in preparation for the wind to back them out of the picture, this will give time for new better technologies in wind, or temperature stability to stop the madness.

Alleagra

Ian W: ‘In UK in just the first two weeks of March 2013, more than 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty.’.
I can well believe it but do you have a source for this information? Seems a difficult set of facts to ascertain for each death.

How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering?
Probably none. Most of them are ex-lawyers, accountants or Union Shop Stewards/Organisers, so their knowledge of anything technical is strictly limited, which is why the Civil Service runs rings round them and essentially tells them what to do. Incidently, in a recent argument with a “Green Party member I was told all “heat exchanging” systems of power generation MUST go as the heat ‘lost’ in the “Cooling Towers” is contributing to Global Warming …
These are the kind of people driving the UK’s energy policy. La La Land about sums it up.

Thanks for the good information, Paul.
I’m glad I will soon have no family in England.
I thought there were lemmings in England. But I’m told this creatures jumping off the cliffs of Dover are actually people! What a shame.

Manfred

Peter Miller says:June 13, 2013 at 10:55 am “What sort of backlash will there be when the first brownouts and blackouts begin and there is a realisation that things can get only get worse for many years to come?”
______________________________________________________________________________
On top of an inability or limited ability to afford any power in the first place, power impoverished citizens would appear to be effectively removed en masse from participating in ‘civil society’. I imagine the UK will resemble the set of a very dark science fiction movie. /sarc
In fact, I would anticipate an absence of what passes today for societal cohesion.

DirkH

Brits are so funny.

The miracle that everyone thinks doesnt exist….
Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device
Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén
(Submitted on 16 May 2013 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2013 (this version, v3))
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

So even under the best case, there is a hole of 121 TWh to fill, about a third of the electricity currently generated, and logically this can only come from wind/solar.

I know what you meant, but “logically” is not even remotely the right word to use here.
If the government holds to these targets, including the nuclear closures, then clearly the anticipated demand cannot possibly be met. Shortages and rationing must necessarily follow.
P.J. O’Rourke once observed “Communism is the only economic system in the history of the world that can take 80 million highly educated, Protestant work ethic-imbued Germans and turn them into a third world country”. Looks like Greenism may also prove equal to the task.

DirkH

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
June 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“P.J. O’Rourke once observed “Communism is the only economic system in the history of the world that can take 80 million highly educated, Protestant work ethic-imbued Germans and turn them into a third world country”. Looks like Greenism may also prove equal to the task.”
Yeah sure. What communism never achieved Green policies do: A producer is paid a high fixed price for a good that is then given away with some money on top of it. Namely, buying subsidized solar power and “selling” it for negative prices just so it stops melting down the grid.
While the watermelons are in general just socialists, this is a real improvement on Marx.

Yeah sure. What communism never achieved Green policies do: A producer is paid a high fixed price for a good that is then given away with some money on top of it. Namely, buying subsidized solar power and “selling” it for negative prices just so it stops melting down the grid.
While the watermelons are in general just socialists, this is a real improvement on Marx.

I see it more like a return to Feudalism. Rich land owners and a privileged elite live in luxury on large estates and “grant” us plebs just enough power to keep warm in return for stringent taxes. The green economy simply turns back the clock 200 years. How can an energy policy possibly make sense which employs 100,000 people to produce 10GW rather than 1,000 people ? Is that progress ? Following that logic why not simply pay people to cycle 8 hours a day on dynamos ? I reckon I can produce 100 watts on a cycling machine – so 3 million people working 3 eight hour shifts could either produce 100 MW of continuous power or be used as emergency backup when the wind drops.

ANH

I am currently in correspondence with DECC to let them know I object most strongly to their policy of killing old people in this country. The response from them is to quote the IPCC reports and the Stern review and then, to my last letter they said –
‘It is the Government’s view that the scientific evidence for current man-made climate change is robust and compelling. The scientific case for action is very strong and our policies are firmly based on the weight of this evidence. We would be failing in our duties to pretend otherwise and with other countries around the world, we must take the actions necessary to protect our planet from future significant and potentially dangerous climate change.
Ice core records for the past 800 thousand years demonstrate a close relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and temperatures, with low CO2 concentrations in cold periods and high concentrations in warm periods, due to positive (or amplifying) feedback effects. In the distant past this meant that temperatures tended to ‘lead’ the rise in CO2 but, at the present time, man-made greenhouse gas emissions are leading the temperature rise.
Global average temperature has not increased significantly since around 1998; however, periods of little or no warming should be expected due to both natural climate variability and other drivers (such as small variations in solar output), which can temporarily mask long term warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Other such 15-year long periods of little or no warming have occurred in the record since 1850.
Despite the uncertainties, it is recognised that there are substantial risks associated with some of the projected impacts of climate change, which are likely to be well beyond the range of human experience. For that reason action must be taken to try and minimise these risks. The UK’s contribution to this aim is the Climate Change Act of 2008 which binds the UK to a number of challenging emissions reduction targets. They were recommended to the Government by the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body set up for this purpose under the terms of the Act. In their report[1] they also advised that these emissions reduction targets are affordable.’
I like the bit about how increases in CO2 used to come after temperature rise but now the CO2 rise comes first – it’s the modern way?
‘Robust and compelling’ – they say. We in the uk are in big big trouble with idiots like this in control of our energy policy.

As I lived in the UK until a year ago, I know the reality is people lucky enough to live in older houses are switching en-masse back to burning coal and wood in domestic fireplaces – in many cases, in defiance of clean air laws..
In many cases I believe the wood was stolen from nearby forests, possibly with a bribe paid to the local park ranger – always delivered by people who “did it as a hobby”, who expected payment in cash, never provided a receipt, who you heard about from your neighbour.
Turning to the black market is how you survive, when normal supply is impossible.

The biggest gripe I have about this analysis is its overly pessimistic outlook for nuclear power.
Britain has already allocated sites for new plants and has concluded agreements with I believe three companies for the Gen 3 plants. The world has changed over the past few years with respect to nuclear, and cost overruns and regulatory delays are mostly a thing of the past The US trails the world badly, with only 5 or 6 new plants scheduled over the next 5 years.

J Martin

We once had the means to design and build nuclear powers stations in the UK, but now we are at the mercy of foreign companies who can refuse to build unless they are guaranteed profits well above the going rate.
The only way to meet the growth in demand is to frack for gas, and the only way to cope with retiring coal and old nuclear plants is also gas, since the gas is locally available and gas plants have a short lead time. Eventually an enlarged nuclear base load is the only way to achieve their aims.
The only thing in the proposal which has any sense at all would be to encourage the use of heat pumps in homes already using electricity for heat. Money spent on heat pumps is far more effective than money spent on windmills.
Just because the idiots in the house of commons passed it into law doesn’t mean those targets will or can be met. Perhaps UKIP will come from nowhere to pull off a clean sweep at the next general election and put an end to this idiocy which is economic suicide par excellence.

J Martin

“Government plans assume that Carbon Storage, CCS, could provide 10GW by 2030,”
Am I missing something here ? how does carbon storage generate power ? Carbon storage sounds like another name for carbon capture which will consume even more power.

alex the skeptic

Invest in a 3kVA diesel genset and a few 5 gallon jerry cans. Unless these are banned by the loons in power, it is the only way to ensure a constant supply of electrical power, or vote UKIP, it’s cheaper.

@ Eric Worrall
I can attest to that. I live in a large old house, with open fires, and three coal and wood burning stoves. We do have gas powered central heating system, but have not used it in years. Boiler just heats water for baths/washing up.
What makes me wonder, is that coal on the market costs these days 50 USD per ton, yet if I were to order it from my national coal merchant CPL, retail price is 380 UK Pounds, or 600 USD per ton.
We burn through about a ton of coal per winter, I am thinking of ordering a container load of coal from China, and starting business selling coal to neighbours. Everybody who I know living in older houses fitting wood and coal burning stoves.
We also burn a lot of wood, and I am thinking of getting a large lorry of round wood delivered. I am good with chainsaw.
We have abundance of heat in the house, but I feel sorry for the less fit or less capable of looking after themselves.
Years ago, I looked into installing solar hot water system (forget about solar electric, as it is even less efficient), and found it to be a waste of time and money. Best investment to keep us warm so far is my Huskvarna chainsaw, at 240 UK pounds, 10 years ago, still going strong, crunching trough tons of wood.

J Martin

Economic suicide to achieve probably less than one hundredth of a degree centigrade reduction in temperatures, or a delay in global warming of about 1 day per year.
A broken economy, riots and social breakdown will be the outcome.
The only hope is that, ever shorter, cooler summers, ever longer colder winters which are looking increasingly likely may cause a rethink, especially if global temperatures fall markedly thus undermining the so called science that underpins the idiot members of parliament religious convictions.

Lil Fella from OZ

Those who dwell in the UK need to practice living without sufficient electricity… and quick! Only reality seems to knock common sense back into action. Sadly, all this has dire consequences for the population.

John Campbell

Your conclusion, that “either way, consumers can look forward to massively increased bills and energy rationing”, seems to be supported by the last-minute amendment tucked into last week’s Energy Bill. The amendment was a new Clause 11 (see Hansard – end of http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130604/debtext/130604-0002.htm
and the begining of
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130604/debtext/130604-0003.htm.).
Item (1) of this amendement states, “The Secretary of State must within 12 months of the passing of this Act publish a strategy setting out policies to achieve a reduction in demand for electricity of at least 103 TWh by 2020 and 154 TWh by 2030.”
Since the UK used around 375 TWh in 2012, this means a 40% reduction in electricity use by 2030.
Item (2) gives the Secretary of state very wide powers to achieve this: “The Secretary of State may, instead of conferring functions on the national system operator, confer functions on such other person or body as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Finally, Item (5) says: “Nothing in the strategy shall rely upon the use of the price mechanism to reduce demand.”
The immediate questions are: (1) Why does the UK Government think this amendment necessary? (Your post gives an answer to that.) (2) Precisely how does the Government plan to achieve such a reduction in power consumption?

catweazle666

The Climate Change Act is dead in the water.
It just hasn’t realised it yet.

Sam the First

We are already living in LaLa Land over here in the UK, so far as energy policy is concerned.
Fortunately Tim Yeo MP has been forced to stand aside (for the moment) from the Chairmanship of the ‘Energy and Climate Control’ Parliamentary Committee; he has been pushing Green policies and profiting from them for years now, as recently recorded on WUWT.
If Peter Lilley MP takes over the Chairmanship we have some hope of sanity creeping in: he has a degree in Physics, and thinks the whole AGW furore is nonsense.
Meanwhile, I’m another of those lucky enough to live in a rural area with a fireplace in my house. the winter before last I heated my house entirely from fallen wood I carried home on dog-walks (bigger pieces in my car). I couldn’t do that this winter past, due to a broken leg; luckily a kind rich friend in America helped out with funds. When I’m too old for such exertions as foraging for wood, I shall have to live in one room and no doubt I shall be staying in bed most of the day.
Old people in rented accommodation with only gas heating are already living in freezing conditions, as it’s too expensive to use now all day (or for some, to use at all). In this way they contract bronchitis and pneumonia, and die off in great numbers, saving the govt lots of money no doubt.. From a government withdrawing ‘benefits’ from those dying of cancer, and from soldiers with severed limbs, on the grounds they are ‘fit for work’, little help can be expected to keep the economically inactive warm .

Tony B (another one)

Agreed – the entire strategy is completely insane. Unfortunately the people of this country are not natural revolutionaries, usually accepting ridiculous laws with a shrug. In France they would be burning cars in the street by now.
Of course, the nation’s natural choice of news provider (the BBC) would not ever pick holes in the scam, being part of it.
The reality is beginning to bite now, however, with huge increases in energy bills. In my case the cost of heating my home through the cool spring has effectively tripled, compared with previous years. And this in spite of a new high efficiency gas boiler, new thermostats and new double glazing. I am fortunate that I am earning good money and can pay. There must be so many who cannot now.
People need to get into the streets outside parliament and make their anger known to the loonies in power.

artwest

The Gray Monk says:
June 13, 2013 at 12:15 pm
How many MPs have degrees in Physics or Engineering?
Probably none. Most of them are ex-lawyers, accountants or Union Shop Stewards/Organisers,
——————————-
An increasing number don’t even have that sort of experience.
They start out in student politics, become a bag-carrier for a politician and are eventually, if they are bland, obsequious and glib enough, parachuted into a safe seat in a part of the country they have previously barely heard of. If there are any byways on this trajectory it is via local politics, “think tanks” or the odd fake charity/green pressure group. They become MPs without the faintest clue of how the real world works or how most people live their lives.
It goes without saying that anything actually useful they have done for anyone else in this time is purely coincidental. They have said a lot but achieved nothing.
Which perfectly prepares them for life as a 21st Century MP.
Incidentally iI watched the “cash for questions” Panorama last night where, in a sting operation, an MP was bribed to ask questions in the House of Commons for the benefit of that military dictatorship, Fiji.
Regardless of the corruption, I wondered how on Earth have we got to the stage where an MP can ask such questions in the House without other MPs not asking “What the **** has the prosperity of Fiji got to do with this guy’s job in supposedly representing the people of Newark in particular and the UK in general?” That’s even if they didn’t realize that Fiji’s sugar industry is direct competition for Newark’s only real industry, sugar beet!

GymCee

Although it goes against the prevaling public belief, we have broken up the power industry too much. The individual companies are too small to carry the financial and technical burden of the required new build programme. In addition having so many smaller players allows ignorant an incompetent politicians and civil servants to highjack the industry. A monopoly or duopoly would be able to argue back against ministerial idiocy more effectively and manage the required resources. We have let shortsighted fools cripple one our key industries and every facet of our society suffers as a consequence even if they don’t recognise that fact.

pat

a tale from South Australia:
13 June: Adelaide Advertiser: Miles Kemp: Power generators accused of using lack of wind as excuse to charge more for electricity
WELFARE groups have accused electricity generators of using a wind failure as a smokescreen for a wholesale electricity price spike that will increase electricity bills.
The incident happened last week when the price increased from the average below $100 per MwH to $12,199 MwH…
AGL owns Torrens Island power station, as well as about 25 per cent of the state’s wind power.
The price blowout began last week when AGL’s wind generation capacity dropped to zero. Between Saturday June 1 and Monday June 3, all wind generation in SA dropped from 900 MW to zero because of weather conditions.
AEMO has told adelaidenow other generation units were also offline, causing the price spike.
“The reduced thermal generation capacity included plant at Osborne and Torrens Island,” an AEMO spokeswoman said.
“The Murraylink interconnector (which brings electricity from Victoria) was out of service due to a cable fault.”…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/power-generators-accused-of-using-lack-of-wind-as-excuse-to-charge-more-for-electricity/story-e6frea83-1226663374181
——————————————————————————–

@ krechetov
I have another suggestion – get away while you still can. I like Farage, the only sensible politician left in Britain, but I believe he will fail – if he approaches too close to success, he will have an unfortunate accident.
The looters who now run Britain will see your family cold and hungry, to keep their dachas warm. Your business will be destroyed by their politics and greed.
It was an expensive, difficult decision to leave, and we left it too late – the move wiped us out financially. But at least now we have a chance.

Gary Pearse

Paul, surely there is a limit to how much the people of UK will put up with. My earlier estimates of this, of course, have gone by the boards – I knew earlier generations of Brits and this confounded my thinking. Also, I give CAGW 5 years to totally collapse – helped by an election in the USA. UK will hang on longer because both left and so-called right have all bought into this figuratively and literally. You know in extremus that humans can turn to cannibalism eventhough they put this off for the longest possible time. For self preservation, I’m afraid the dominant left is going to have to opt for the hated, real right, just like reluctant cannibals have had to make their choices in extremus.

j fisk

We have the coal, lets burn it. I am sure our Victorian forefathers would spin in their graves if they saw the mess we were in.

skunky

I recently had a meeting with a VERY senior civil servant at DECC (work related so unfortunately I cannot name and shame, will get sacked if I do). I asked what research the government is doing into thorium reactors? The response was ‘what is thorium’.
This country is screwed.

I understand what’s going on now.
The UN has the right idea.
Raise the price of energy.
This is the easiest way to get rid of the infirm and the poor.
The parasites are gone.
Only the rich and strong survive.
Those folks at the UN really know their stuff.
They’ll figure out a way to get 100s of millions of dead and refugees, somehow.
cn

Jakehig

Let’s not forget that the “planners” have another string to their bow.
At huge expense a programme of fitting “smart meters” will be rolled out across the country I think this was due to start in 2014 but has just been put back 12 months. A key feature of these meters is the facility for remote disconnection.
So, when power runs short – as it inevitably will – demand will be reduced by cutting off consumers.
In an earlier post someone asked how many of our MPs are scientists or engineers. Some time ago I found a list of MPs’ qualifications and activities, I think it was on a site called “They work for you”. As well as those with obvious technical qualifications I added some who are heavily involved in science committees, etc.. The total was about 70 – just over 10% of the chamber. ‘Nuff said.

Disko Troop

Just as the alchemists of the past tried to turn lead into gold, what we really need now is someone to convert coal into biomass. It went the other way quite naturally, we just need to reverse the process and we can start burning it again.
(sarc)

Ian W

Alleagra says:
June 13, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Ian W: ‘In UK in just the first two weeks of March 2013, more than 2000 people died of cold in energy poverty.’.
—–
I can well believe it but do you have a source for this information? Seems a difficult set of facts to ascertain for each death.

There are multiple references in the internet the death rate is over 150 a day but who cares? right? –
“The number of deaths last month has increased by more than 5,000, following the second-coldest March on record. Official figures for the first 3 weeks of March 2013 showed that there were 4,206 more deaths than the average for the past 5 years. With another 1,000 expected during the last week of the month, this pushes the number of extra deaths to over 5,000.”
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/archive/5000-extra-deaths-during-march/

Mike jarosz

It is easy to understand why the government doesn’t want the citizens to own guns. God Bless the U.S. Constitution. The inmates are in charge.