Britain Faces Energy Crisis, Engineers Warn – Green Isn’t Working

Via The GWPF


Energy bills will soar as green policies shut coal-fired power stations and cause an “electricity supply crisis”, experts say. Prices will be forced up as the UK has to import more power, according to a report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers today. –Craig Woodhouse, The Sun, 26 January 2016

The UK is heading for a severe electricity supply crisis by 2025, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) is warning today. IME, which has more than 112,000 members in 140 countries says the closure of coal and nuclear plants would lead to a 40-55% shortfall amid growing demand. And the group’s new report – Engineering the UK Electricity Gap – also says plans to plug the gap by building combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants are unrealistic as the UK would need about 30 of them in less than 10 years. IME head of energy and environment Jenifercorr Baxter, lead author of the document, said: “The UK is facing an electricity supply crisis. As the UK population rises and with the greater use of electricity use in transport and heating, it looks almost certain that electricity demand is going to rise.” –Keith Findlay, Energy Voice, 26 January 2016

229 thoughts on “Britain Faces Energy Crisis, Engineers Warn – Green Isn’t Working

  1. But, but,but we gave Ed Davey a knighthood. This cannot possibly be.

    Numpty Lib-Dem child who ‘ran’ (carried the can for the Tories) the Department for Climate Change

  2. You try to solve a non-existent problem by replacing reliable coal/gas powered electric generation with an energy source that works 30% of the time and you come up with a crisis. Well duh!

    • What do you mean? They are firing half of Drax with wood chips carted across the Atlantic in ships that (gasp!!) burn oil to get places.

      Nothing against wood chips. My pellet insert in my fireplace is nice. I get the fire in the fireplace, the dog loves it, and my wife does not complain about smoke. But generating electricity is quite another matter.

      • Christopher Booker pointed out in last Sundays Telegraph that on Tuesday 19th Jan when temperatures were in minus degree C for parts of the UK wind power was supplying a whole 0.1% of grid loading that is 5,500 windmills producing a whopping 66 MW. I do wonder what the nameplate output of those windmills is just to show how useless they are?

        James Bull

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

        This is for James Bull. The above is the reference you are looking for and it lists 13.1 GW name plate capacity, that is as of August 2015. If you go to http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk site you will find the latest info on what is actually being provided to the net and it is brought up to date every five minutes. If you are interested, the data goes back as far as 2011 so it is well worth looking at. That 13.1GW has probably been overtaken by now and it could be somewhere in the region of 13.4 or so GW but I have no way of knowing for sure.

        Gus

      • Gus, that’s an amazing site. Britain gets 20% of its power from nuclear. I would have guessed less. Wind generates it looks on average about 2-3GW of the 40GW demand. So, you’d need 15 times as many wind generators to replace all but as you know that wouldn’t work. Thanks for the site. I wonder if the US has any site that is comparable or even states or regions.

  3. Re: Green Isn’t Working 1/26/16

    Of course it’s working!

    1. Environmentalism has replaced science in K-12. Most university physical science departments are Post Modern (“Publish or Perish”) and thriving on government grants.

    2. Commerce and the Standard of Living in the West show marked downward trends. The US Democrat Party is admitting to being socialistic.

    3. The World is being saved from AGW, though the results aren’t scheduled during our lifetimes.

    • results aren’t scheduled during our lifetimes.
      ========================
      I have a great deal on corporate bonds. They accrue 10% compounded annually, payable at maturity in 100 years. The IPCC guarantees the return.

      • snopercod, you do realise that the logical corollary of that is that the Government has the right to tell you how to live?

        It does to a degree, we need that to have a society but it’s generally limited by Constitutions and Bills of Rights. socialism theory says that the right of the government to intrude into all facets of a personal life should not be impeded. There’s the rub. ;)

      • @Snoper:
        Like liberal NYC charging ~$13 for a pack of cigarettes, attempting to limiting soda size and also strict rules on self defense to avoid a felony (excepting the police dept.where NO rules apply). Sounds like the the perfect place for leftists.

      • Though on the contrary, snopercod, everyone does have the right to live their life for their own sake.

        It’s just that in an Enlightenment society like ours, everyone’s sake is co-equal. No one can live their life at the sake of someone else.

        Socialism’s basic premise is that the value of anyone’s life is found only its contribution to the social good. No individual life has value in and of itself.

        And the social good is set by an agreed ideology. Socialism is also vitally interested in preserving its own status quo. It is therefore and necessarily hostile to creative thinkers. All of that makes polities organized around socialism destined to failure.

        No matter all the fine phrases about social and economic justice, socialism is about tyranny and is a recipe for intolerance.

      • Pat Frank:

        You mistakenly claim

        socialism is about tyranny and is a recipe for intolerance.

        On WUWT the most intolerant views by far are made by members of the American ultra-right.

        Richard

      • Re: Green↓ 1/26/16 @ 5:03pm:

        Sun Spot, 1/26/16 @ 11:15 am, blurted this: Building a road is socialistic, I don’t think you know what socialism means. [76 characters]

        Stephen Richards 16 minutes later wasted 18 more characters to tweet this claim: Socialism and socialistic are two entirely different concepts as are communist and communistic

        Dictionary.com says: socialistic; adjective: 1. of or relating to socialists or socialism. 2. in accordance with socialism. 3. advocating or supporting socialism.

        where socialism: noun: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

        Dictionary.com is a personal go-to dictionary, but it, too, could be improved. [C]apital, land is redundant, and the etc. is purely superfluous, based on its definitions of capital and wealth.

        The definition of socialism by Prof. Reisman is not much different, except that he inexplicably – for an economist — leaves out the means of distribution. Capitalism, pp. 264, 267. The definition of the term from the other side, i.e., by Marxists, is truly peculiar, including this, buried in the usual verbiage:

        The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. marxists.org/glossary.

        (a) Read with the Marxist definition of exploitation, the definition is circular, and (b) it ignores the basic tenets of ownership to attack the free market concepts of rent, salary, and interest. It’s no different than the Marxist rule: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Id., Planned Economy.

        So for Mr. Spot: Sun, how do you reckon that building a road an example of socialism, even if done by a government? In that way you proved that it is you, not I, that doesn’t know what socialism means. If you have a definition that supports your meaning, please quote it.

        For Mr. Richards, how is socialistic an entirely different concept from socialism when the former is, by definition, related to the latter?

        About the Democrat party coming to admit to being socialistic, MarkW at 10:40 am said, Heck, they proclaim it proudly. Some do, some don’t. Bernie Sanders openly calls himself a socialist, then tries to walk it back by explaining that he is actually only a democratic socialist. Hillary counters that her idea is only to reign in capitalism, not replace it. At the same time, she defends her party’s nationalization of health insurance and the taking of General Motors from public ownership, only to give it to the union, which is a thin distinction from the Democrat Party. They are progressives, especially in the sense that they are progressively incorporating the tenets of socialism. No Democrat yet proclaims that the party is socialistic.

        Tweeting comments is like posting bumper stickers. Like most campaigns for President: top of the head, slogans, reflexive, conditioned responses. Like things politically correct, guaranteed at the outset — by definition — to be shallow, and, thus, unsupportable. Wrong-headed, if not just wrong.

      • Re: Green↓ 1/26/16 @ 5:03pm:

        Sun Spot, 1/26/16 @ 11:15 am, blurted this: Building a road is socialistic, I don’t think you know what socialism means. [76 characters]

        Stephen Richards 16 minutes later wasted 18 more characters to tweet this claim: Socialism and socialistic are two entirely different concepts as are communist and communistic

        Dictionary.com says: socialistic; adjective: 1. of or relating to socialists or socialism. 2. in accordance with socialism. 3. advocating or supporting socialism.

        where socialism: noun: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

        Dictionary.com is a personal go-to dictionary, but it, too, could be improved. [C]apital, land is redundant, and the etc. is purely superfluous, based on its definitions of capital and wealth.

        The definition of socialism by Prof. Reisman is not much different, except that he inexplicably – for an economist — leaves out the means of distribution. Capitalism, pp. 264, 267. The definition of the term from the other side, i.e., by Marxists, is truly peculiar, including this, buried in the usual verbiage:

        The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth. marxists.org/glossary.

        (a) Read with the Marxist definition of exploitation, the definition is circular, and (b) it ignores the basic tenets of ownership to attack the free market concepts of rent, salary, and interest. It’s no different than the Marxist rule: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Id., Planned Economy.

        So for Mr. Spot: Sun, how do you reckon that building a road an example of socialism, even if done by a government? In that way you showed that it you are the one who doesn’t know what socialism means. But if you have a definition that supports your meaning, please quote it.

        For Mr. Richards, how can socialistic be an entirely different concept from socialism when socialistic, by definition, refers to socialism?

        About the Democrat party coming to admit to being socialistic, MarkW at 10:40 am said, Heck, they proclaim it proudly. Some do, some don’t. Candidate A openly calls himself a socialist, then tries to walk it back by explaining that he is actually only a democratic socialist. Candidate B counters that the policy is only to reign in capitalism, not replace it. At the same time, B defends the party’s nationalization of health insurance and the taking of General Motors from public ownership, only to give it to the union, which is a thin distinction from the Democrat Party. They are progressives, especially in the sense that they are progressively incorporating the tenets of socialism. No Democrat yet proclaims that the party is socialistic.

        Tweeting comments is like posting bumper stickers. Like most campaigns for President: top of the head, slogans, reflexive, conditioned responses. Like things politically correct, guaranteed at the outset — by definition — to be shallow, and, thus, unsupportable. Wrong-headed, if not wrong.

      • I’ve no way of knowing the political views of WUWT commenters, Richard, and don’t see in any case how individual behavior impacts a general point of political philosophy. On the other hand, the 20th century history of oppressive and murderous polities bears me out.

      • Pat Frank:

        In response to my saying

        Pat Frank:

        You mistakenly claim

        socialism is about tyranny and is a recipe for intolerance.

        On WUWT the most intolerant views by far are made by members of the American ultra-right.

        You say

        I’ve no way of knowing the political views of WUWT commenters, Richard, and don’t see in any case how individual behavior impacts a general point of political philosophy. On the other hand, the 20th century history of oppressive and murderous polities bears me out.

        You only have to read what people write on WUWT to know “their political views”; e.g. only the rabid right tries to pretend naz1s were and are left wing.

        And your opinion of “20th century history of oppressive and murderous polities” is wrong: the extreme right (naz1s) and extreme left (communists) provided “oppressive and murderous polities” but not socialism.

        Richard

      • Perhaps Jerry Pournelle’s two, rather than one, dimensional chart on political philosophy would be better. I am bad enough at computers to not know how to provide a link, but it is something that pops up when you google Pournelle.

      • One has to remember that the courtneys use circular reasoning.
        Anything bad, is from the right, therefore anyone who says something they don’t like is not just a rightist, but an ultra-rightist.

        Sorry Richard, it is you socialist who proclaim the right to force others to live the way you want them to live, which is by definition tyrannical.

      • According to Richard, the national socialists weren’t socialists, despite the fact that their party platform was full of socialism.
        The reason for this is simple, the national socialists were bad guys, which proves that they were right wing.

      • MarkW:

        This is the second thread where during the last 24 hours you have posted blatant falsehoods about “the courtneys”.

        You lie

        One has to remember that the courtneys use circular reasoning.
        Anything bad, is from the right, therefore anyone who says something they don’t like is not just a rightist, but an ultra-rightist.

        Sorry Richard, it is you socialist who proclaim the right to force others to live the way you want them to live, which is by definition tyrannical.

        I don’t know any “courtneys” who have ever claimed “Anything bad, is from the right,” and you don’t provide a citation because you know you are presenting a fabrication. Your accusation of “circular reasoning” is based on your fabrication.

        I don’t “proclaim the right to force others to live the way {i} want them to live”. In fact, the opposite. I proclaim socialism which attempts to give everyone the ability to live the way they each individually want to live. You know your lie is blatantly untrue because I have repeatedly referred you to what I do “proclaim” which is on WUWT here.

        You neo-naz1s advocate tyranny. And you try to excuse it with this nonsense

        According to Richard, the national socialists weren’t socialists, despite the fact that their party platform was full of socialism.
        The reason for this is simple, the national socialists were bad guys, which proves that they were right wing.

        NO! National Socialists (i.e. naz1s) were and are fascists. And by definition, fascists are right wing. They not only did NOT have a “party platform {that} was full of socialism”, they rounded up socialists and tried to exterminate them.

        As the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines fascism is

        An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

        and the OED also informs

        The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

        As I said to Pat Frank,

        only the rabid right tries to pretend naz1s were and are left wing.

        Richard

      • Richard, I refer you to James Gregor’s “The Faces of Janus,” which demonstrates beyond rational doubt that fascism (and thus Nazism) derived directly from Marxism. I.e., both are what you would call left wing.

        A more popular treatment is Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism,” which establishes the same point. “Liberal” is US-speak for what you might call a social democrat.
        Communism is merely socialism taken to its necessary conclusion.

        “Social Democracy” is a contradiction in terms, by the way, because socialism is structurally hostile to being voted out of power.Richard, I refer you to James Gregor’s “The Faces of Janus,” which demonstrates beyond rational doubt that fascism (and thus Nazism) derived directly from Marxism. I.e., both are what you would call left wing.

        A more popular treatment is Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism,” which establishes the same point. “Liberal” is US-speak for what you might call a social democrat.
        Communism is merely socialism taken to its necessary conclusion.

        “Social Democracy” is a contradiction in terms, by the way, because socialism is structurally hostile to being voted out of power.

      • Socialism is a very good system but it only applies to me as an individual and not you lot as a socialistic group. It’s why only I understand socialism well enough to be the Fearless Leader while the relatives and mates handle the Great Leap Forward under my watchful eye. Socialistically speaking I’m not into windmills but the nephew is big time so there must be a lot in it you don’t see.

  4. So if Britain needs to import more electricity, are the various trans-Channel feeders large enough to handle the future power flux?

    • No and the one to France is likely to work the other way as they replace Nuclear with Wind, ROFL, another country to destroy a world class leading Generation system on the say so of Greens and the CAGW myth.
      You couldn’t have made it up 50 years ago, oh come to think of it the book 1984 got quite close to this sort of madness.

      • Regarding “and the one to France is likely to work the other way as they replace Nuclear with Wind, ROFL, another country to destroy a world class leading Generation system on the say so of Greens and the CAGW myth”:

        I ask: How is dismantling nuclear power generation supposed to reduce CAGW? Why should ones who think CAGW is such a great problem oppose nuclear power?

    • If the price goes high enough there will be no supply problem. people will simply not be able to afford electricity. coal should be pretty cheap and plentiful to fill the gap. nothing like a smoldering bucket of coal in every room to keep the house toasty.

      • Quite true. But a fireplace is required to burn this coal and they went out of the window with all the clean air acts years ago. People in the UK could sit around a coal fire in the back yard but the constant rain would keep putting the fire out!

      • That is their plan. Added to installing ‘smart’ meters to be able to cut you off in times of peak demand, make you pay more during peak demand and show you just how eye-watering your bill is in real time. And of course we will all be disconnected from the gas grid and forced to use electric heating – glad I have an open fire.

    • Definitely not. Add to that the the socialists in france have announced that they intend to close 50% of their nuclear power (not power stations) and put 7.000.000 recharge sockets along the roads and you have a situation where we will not have any power to give to the UK, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain and other border eu countries;

      The future is green. The future is black ….. outs.

    • DJ: There is nothing wrong with the European dream. Power will be assured. Anyone travelling from the Continent to the UK will be forced (by the Commissars of the EU) to carry a 12-volt battery with them. At the last count*, 20 Million passengers were carried on Channel ferries ( a low count over time). That’s a lot of power they plan to be imported. /s
      *see here.

      BTW: What a great heading pic. I’ve already sent it on to my sceptic list.

      • I like it too, but it would work even better if you put a few people in Nazi concentration camp style uniforms on the other side, looking out forlornly.

    • D. J. Hawkins:

      You ask

      So if Britain needs to import more electricity, are the various trans-Channel feeders large enough to handle the future power flux?

      The approval process for three additional interconnectors is underway and they would enable 3.4GW of additional electricity imports.

      (Ofgem is the government regulator for gas and electricity markets in Great Britain.)

      Richard

      • I looked at the ETYS for 2015, and the lowest growth calls for an increase in installed capacity of 10 GW by about 2023 or so. So the answer, in short, is “no”, especially if they shut down nuclear (8 GW) any time soon.

        Laughably, the ETYS claims the largest growth of installed capacity and demand under the “Gone Green” transmission scenario. How people will afford that energy is a bit of a mystery.

    • So the U.K energy crisis has now been moved from 2015/16 to 2025?

      There is nothing like failure to convince people.

  5. Given that even if you were to believe the antiscientific IPCC fantasies, there exists precisely zero chance of making any difference whatsoever to World co2 levels by implementing green policies in the UK. Therefore it is clear that our old Etonian half-witted political class would prefer to cut the throat of every man woman and child in the Country rather than be seen to be not properly aligned with the currently fashionable western suicide pact.

  6. I don’t think that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers is concerned about the lights going out, it has been taken over by the Green Blob, and is concerned that the lights will stay on via a continuation of coal-fired electricity. They are “low-carbon” advocates agitating for tax and bill payers money (which they laughingly refer to as “investment”) to make their dream come true, via storage and demand reduction and other wacky ideas.

    They think/hope that electricity demand will grow due to electric cars and heating, in reality demand may not rise at all due to ever increasing prices and failure of these “green” technologies.

    • Sorry, I know the lead author is a greenie, but the are advocating Gas Generation powered by Fracked Gas and efficiencies, not more Wind or Solar.
      Although they do not condemn Wind or Solar as they should.

    • … demand reduction and other wacky ideas.

      Efficiency (which reduces demand) is usually cheaper than extra capacity. It’s not so wacky. On the other hand, we’ve been working on efficiency since the 1970s. I’m not sure how much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

      The local city is installing LED street lights. The payback is less than five years. I was surprised. High pressure sodium lights are already pretty efficient. LEDs are enough better to make them worthwhile.

      • I’ve made the comment before but it bears repeating: if I had followed the government advice to “turn the thermostat down 1°” every time they ran an energy efficiency campaign I would have died of hypothermia years ago.

      • Increased efficiency actually promotes greater use of a commodity, because the reduced cost of use opens up more applications for use.

      • @Newminster: My Brother-in-law is as tight as a duck’s anus. He will not switch on his CH until November, and even then, he sets the thermostat very low. I once asked him, “Why?”. “To keep my bills down.”, he replied. So, I said, you get no benefit from your heating yet you still pay for it. Duh!

        This is my “bad wine philosophy”: You can buy a bad bottle of wine in a restaurant for £15 (say – ymmv), but a good bottle could cost £25. So, you could have had crap for £15, or great for £25. So the pleasure you got from a bottle cost you £10.

        He never understood that and continued to pay the power company for energy that never heated his house.

      • I see plenty of efficiency improvements still being available, mostly a large number of small ones that add up to a lot. Most LED indicator lights (along with their associated dropping resistors and their share of losses in switching and power supply circuits) use about 10-20 times as much power as LEDs that cost only a few cents more. Incandescent holiday lights still have some popularity and can now be replaced by LED ones that use about 1/10 as much power. Many houses can be improved thermally, especially with their windows and window treatments. People can “dress for the weather” more when indoors, which reduces need for climate control. Especially in cooler weather – which means reducing workload for refrigerators. There is still incandescent lighting in use, and their electric heat generally costs more than heat from electric heat pumps or fossil fuels – and is counterproductive when and where air conditioning is used. Also, many electronic devices can have their power supply circuits consuming around .25 to 1 watt less power with a cost increase of less than a dollar.

      • commieBob:

        You say

        Efficiency (which reduces demand) is usually cheaper than extra capacity.

        Sorry, but no: increased efficiency usually increases demand. It seems you are not aware of the Jevons Paradox which has been known since the nineteenth century.

        The Jevons Paradox is that when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.

        To illustrate this paradox in mundane terms, when energy efficiency reduces a person’s fuel bills then he has more money available to enable him to e.g. fly to a Weekend City Break.

        Richard

      • That’s the rub, the low-hanging fruit was taken down a long time ago, and now the improvements are uphill all the way. Lights are a good spot for improvement, especially with LEDs dropping in price, but they account for a small fraction of our energy expenses, which are primarily caused by heating, cooling, and appliances.

    • The Institute of Engineering & Technology spouts green drivel these days. If their magazine fell out of the Guardian (currently losing £50m a year -yippee) you wouldn’t be surprised. I was shocked just how bad it had got when I found a 10 year old copy of Engineering & Technology and there was lots of interesting articles. Now there are hardly any worth reading. Like other institutions, I don’t recall a members’ vote on become green blob fans.

    • “I don’t think the Institute of Mechanical Engineers is concerned about the lights going out…”
      I read the report and I was surprised that it contained some observations, conclusions and recommendations but no analysis to back any of this up. The report does not question the merits of the U.K.”s stated intention to reduce GHG emissions sharply or to phase out coal-fired generation by 2025. It suggests that adding natural gas fired plants will not address the supply “gap”, and therefore frets about higher imports, higher electricity rates and reduced security of supply, while expressing a rather simple faith that research into storage and process efficiency will somehow result in lower demand. Overall, it is not a very persuasive report.

    • I am far from a scientist but only common sense engineer who was in sales most of my life, and not counting Puff,s on a resistor. Thanks Eng., UK

      • pyeatte,

        I assume your reply is to NS. If so, I agree. Even a 7 kW generator isn’t really enough to reliably power an average house. But it’s enough to get by temporarily (up to a week or so).

        For a reliable power source, a 13 kW generator is pretty good. But it costs 3X more, and you have to stockpile more fuel. So it’s a cost/benefit trade-off.

        In the event you need one, having PB’s 2.8 kW gen, or even NS’ 1 kW, is infinitely better than having nothing. At least 2.8 kW would keep your refrigerator going. But if you want to keep a reefer plus all lights, a washer, microwave, freezer, internet, etc., running, a 7 kW could do it if you were careful to not use the output in parallel.

        My dream home would have rooftop solar with plenty of battery storage, a 13 kW generator that runs on either natgas, gas (petrol), or propane, a week or two food supply, and an army surplus tank to hide in. Just in case. Don’t look at me that way…

      • Get 3 x 7kW.
        Enough redundancy for basic maintenance, plus you use the fuel you need, whether you have 2 or 3 – or 4.
        Oh, and make sure you have necessary consumable spares, at least, plus tools.
        And always disconnect before fiddling . . . . . .

        Auto

      • gnomish & Auto,

        Good suggestions. If/when they’re needed you can score major points by being a good neighbor, either by providing a supply of electricity, or loaning a generator.

  7. One point which should be made public about renewables is the measures being put in place to cover the time when either the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. As coal power stations are decomissioned (Longannet and Cockenzie in Scotland to name but two) there is no longer the generating capacity to serve the load during the absence of wind or sun. The solution being rolled out across the country is the installation of large numbers of diesel generator sets. These are being installed in batches of 200 Units at a time and contracts are being awarded to the major generator manufacturers. However, these generators are only Tier 1 sets which means that the exhaust gases leave the engine and go straight out to atmosphere via the silencer. There is no form of treatment like a catalyst or DPF filter for example. Each set is 3.5MW so 200 units add up to 700MW. A 2 litre car would put out approx 100kW so this is equivalent to 7000 cars running at full throttle but with no form of emissions control. There are at least 2 batches of these 200 units already installed of which I am aware and another 200 have just been ordered. This is just from one company. This must be being repeated all over the country.

    Therefore, we have an insane position where we have self-righteous people driving electric vehicles, charging them from the mains, with the electricity having been generated by a diesel engine with no emissions control and then having the audacity to adopt the moral high ground.

    As the saying goes, you just couldn’t make this up.

    • Norrie that is a great story. Diesel to make electricity to feed into a distribution network to charge cars to drive on roads, recharge at work, to drive home, to save CO2 emissions from diesel fuel. The system efficiency of that must be below 10%.

      Imagine how much it would cost to make that whole system using electricity from windmills and solar panels. Even at its present very high cost, that is only possible because the greater portion of the energy that went into constructing it was produced by cheap coal and nuclear and hydro. As soon as the entire manufacturing base plugs into these boondoggles, the price of everything will shoot up.

  8. And this is the country that produced James Clerk Maxwell? Well, it’s back to the country that allowed ether theory enforcers to rule science.

  9. Denmark got 42% of their electricity from wind last year. On many days they were exporting electricity. Maybe they can sell some to Britain…

    • Only if they subsidise it, like Germany’s exports into the Central European Grid. It is ‘cheaper than coal’ power because it is heavily subsidised, otherwise known as dumping. The WTO is getting involved…

    • This was achieved mostly by load reduction, not increased supply. Over the past decade, Denmark’s electricity demand has shrunk by about one-third. Most of this was lost industrial load.

      First, Denmark has the highest electricity rates in the EU, so if it supplies Britain, British rates will have to go up to pay for it.

      Second, it’s not clear to me that de-industrialization caused by excessively high electricity costs is a particularly useful route to follow.

  10. Norwegian companies Statnett/Statkraft will build a 1400 MW (10 TWh) cable to England payed 50% by Norway, exporting our precious green hydropower that could have been used by our own industry. Cost estimate 20000 million NOK (over 2000 mill euro/dollars). It could help the poor Brits.

    • Too little, too late, and too expensive. 1.4 GW of CCGT would cost about $1.5 billion and could be in place in two years (existing site) or three years (greenfield site). FLP tore down two ~1 GW 1960s fuel oil boiler plants and is replacing them with two 1.2GW CCGT. Total construction time including demolition 2.5 years. Longest lead item is gas pipeline capacity. One two sites is harborside Fort Lauderdale near the airport if any vacationers want have a look on yheirmwaymto beaches or cruise ships. Operational end of this year.

  11. The real UK electricity crisis will come much sooner, good chance this winter or next. This report speaks to overall UK capacity. But the key to reliable electricity is peak capacity at peak demand. Thanks to planned closures of old coal and CCGT, the National Grid reserve margin is at best 5% this winter including all the payments to big industrial consumers to curtail if nesessary. Normal ‘safe’ grid reserve margin is about twice that. And UK wind penetration is now 10% on average of production.
    The great North American blackout of August 14, 2003 was caused by a single generator near Cleveland tripping off (mechanical issues) with the NE NA grid running close to capacity (AC load) at about 1330. By 1630, 252 generating stations had automatically tripped off to protect from overload damage and ~85 million people were dark, including NYC and Toronto. It took nearly 5 days to fully restore the grid.
    UK gets a cold blocking high in January or February (as they often do) wind generation goes to near zero, and UK goes dark if anything happens to the rest of generation. Because of lack of investment (no return given wind subsidies and UK climate change act), most of that base is old. In the past 18 months a fire, mechanical issues, and a nuclear safety question forced several big generating units to shut, one permanently, the others for months. Just one or two more such inevitable incidents and UK goes dark in the dead of winter.
    A multiday NA blackout in August is uncomfortable and inconvenient. A multiday UK winter blackout (peak UK demand is about 6pm during winter months) is deadly. UK is playing Russian roulette with more than one revolver chamber loaded.

    • In the US the Supreme Court just overruled a lower court decision which had ruled against a FERC proposal that would force utilities to pay large users to reduce their load at peak times. So consumers in the US can look forward to eventually paying the extra costs this ruling will engender.

  12. There’s a simple solution.
    Just have all industry leave Britain, then supply will be able to meet demand.

    • They’re working on that, but they will run out of large industrial users.

      And when the industrial users are not there to artificially ‘boost supply’ by cutting their own demand, then the problem will be even worse for the remaining users. Those are users are far more numerous and also have a vote when the election comes…

      • They may have a vote, but who are they going to vote for? The alternative is as bad – or worse.

      • David,
        Unhappily, I think you are right.
        We need to step back from sloganeering and jargonautical phrases.
        What works?
        Short and medium term – Coal, for base load.
        Nuclear – why did the UK throw away competence . . . .?

        This closing coal-fired stations will kill thousands if not stopped.
        Will Miliband, Davey and Rudd be prosecuted for – at least – manslaughter?

        Auto – an enquiring mind.
        And what of their Lilywhite, sea-green incorruptible Prime Ministers?
        [Don’t know if this snares Tony B. Liar . . . .]

    • Most of those closures should have been replaced with CCGT, Paul. Neither of the two proposed UK CCGT stations has even been started due to unfavorable economics (wind feed in priority). And two is insufficient.
      Buy a decent backup generator if you can. Suggest a spark ignited diesel (runs off natural gas and avoids fuel hassle/limited capacity) if you have gas. That is what our building has as hurricane emergency service insurance. A big one (almost 200 kw). Is test run every other day for an hour, and is on test as I peck at this iPad.

      • ristvan,

        Make sure they run it at absolute peak demand for a while. Start up and run for fun every once in a while leaves potential bugs unaccounted for.

    • Your schedule shows 6,098 MW to shut down in March — within the next 65 days. You’d think at a minimum they’d put off the closures until April/May just to make sure of getting through the winter.

      • If those close in May 2016, what about next winter? It still takes a minimum of 2-3 years to put new CCGT capacity in place. You cannot just go down to the local shop and pick one up.

    • ASME seems very open-minded, judging by its newsletters, which include some articles found on wuwt. The UK version (IMechE) was once a respectable professional body, but now seems to be skimming some money off for green political advocacy.

      • climanrecon, good point
        The articles on the ASME Environmental news letter are often mostly from wuwt, and as a retired member of ASME I send many wuwt and others that end up getting included in the newsletter. It is mostly articles of skeptical viewpoint. I am not sure about the rest of ASME as every organization in the US has been corrupted by CAGW. Certainly 90% of the Engineers I have contact with have become skeptics when you show them the data, thank you Anthony. Given the government $$$ and political pressures, it is tough for industry and professional engineering organizations to NOT play ball because of the negative consequences .

  13. The British Government will force the introduction of Smart Metering well before they change course on building new energy infrastructure.
    Maximising the potential to gather income far outweighs any commitments they may feel they have to public energy security.

  14. I think GWPF is twisting this a bit.
    The nuclear and coal plants are been closed because of end of life nothing to do with any green targets. The problem is successive governments have simple done nothing to put in place a plan to replace them.
    If the government were going to replace them all with wind then GWPF could argue against that. The problem is they aren’t doing anything To replace them green, fossil fuel or nuclear to replace them. Well I guess in a way it is ‘green’ if there is no electricity. That will certainly lower emissions.

    • “End of life” is more of a political convenience and talking point than a technical one. It becomes more of a gray line of comparison when considering re-investment and refurbishing vs. all new and full-scale experimental projects that only produce red ink in place of power. See CSP solar projects in the U.S. and Australia and clean coal power plant projects in the U.S. Bottom line is that some of these things don’t work on a massive scale. The old assumptions that large scale projects were only undertaken with proven technologies and systems do not necessarily hold true in an era with overzealous political pressure and major subsidy promises.

      • Resourceguy,
        Great point!!
        I don’t work on power plants, but know full well in other Energy Processing industries that plant life can often be extended indefinitely unless the technology is totally outdated. I have worked on plants that were built during WW 2 and they still compete with new plants. Of course there is replacement and repair of certain components and occasional technology upgrading which is much cheaper than building a new plant. The biggest expense is complying with all the latest environmental regulations which the new plants also have to consider. Pressure vessels, pipes, storage tanks and pumps do not loose their ability to perform unless they are neglected or corrosion issues are ignored.
        End of Life of an entire plant is just another lie from the left.

      • Hunterston B was originally planned to operate until 2011. In 2007 planned operation was extended by 5 years to 2016.[9] In December 2012 EDF said it could (technically and economically) operate until 2023.[10] (Wikipedia)

    • May not have explained that well.

      I mean these were planned closures and the government have had decades to do something about it Blaming this on ‘green legislation’ is letting them of the hook for their incompetence. They could have commission new nuclear or combined gas but they’ve done nothing and no we face a crisis.

    • The coal plants are being closed due to the EU Large Combustion Plants Directive to prevent ‘Acid Rain’ – a previous non-problem, but that will not prevent the EUrocrats from closing them down as they have no concern for people dying of cold in energy poverty. So not end of life, Drax is nowhere near end of life, which is why it is being re-engineered for totally inefficient woodchips, if not woodchips – and there is now an argument on whether they are ‘renewables’ – then Drax will be shut down.

    • Make sure the people know it is the politicians who have done this to you. Vote out the scum, and replace with level-headed thinkers – not Marxists.

      • That would work, if democracy let you ‘vote out the scum’. In reality, you can only vote in some other scum to replace them.

  15. Maybe when the AGW theory is disproved by entry into another LIA by 2020 there will be demand for coal power again.

  16. Just apply the VW engineering “solution” to the problem of unattainable environmental regs with market objectives.

  17. In the UK we have a political class that is dominated by “greenery”.

    We have the most ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets in the World, voted in by almost the entire House of Commons.

    I know that politicians are largely poorly educated in science/engineering, but surely even they could have seen the consequences of their lunacy?

    We will have to wait for serious black-outs when they might make the connection between their irresponsibility and reality

  18. Decreasing Supply (artificial) + Increasing Demand (inevitable) = Price Increases + Power shortages/Outages
    Remember and hold the crooks accountable!

  19. I’m getting a bit worried about WUWT. It used the Daily Express as a source last week and is using The Sun this week. Neither is reliable and both are noted for sensationalist headlines.

      • I’m not too sure what you’re trying to say – but I don’t trust the Guardian either though they tend to distort figures in the opposite direction.

    • Then go and read the IMechE report yourself. I think you’ll find the link for this story is to the GWPF. Are you suggesting they are unreliable, perhaps?

      • You are missing the point. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the general message but a blog like this should be careful about the sources for it’s information.

      • John Finn,

        I am confident in saying that Anthony Watts has been far more careful about credible sources than any alarmist blog (unless he’s posting something clearly ridiculous, like the “Spanish missionaries caused the LIA”). Readers here like that kind of red meat thrown to them once in a while.

        But comparing the GWPF with the Guardian is complete nonsense. The GWPF argues based on valid science, while the Guardian caters to the far Left with its wild-eyed rabble rousing over the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare.

        One is science, the other is propaganda. No comparison on the basis of science is possible.

      • ” Then go and read the IMechE report yourself. I think you’ll find the link for this story is to the GWPF. Are you suggesting they are unreliable, perhaps? ”

        I have now read the IMechE report and I’m pretty sure that the GWPF have interpreted the report’s message.

      • Sorry this

        “the GWPF have interpreted the report’s message”.

        should read

        “the GWPF have MIS-interpreted the report’s message”

        I’ll look into this further but Jenifer Baxter who is quoted in the article is NOT an opponent of renewable energy and is fully on board with the Climate Change message

        We need to minimise waste, pollution and our impact on the world around us. We must also adapt the way we do things to cope with the climate changes that are already underway.

        Jenifer Baxter, Environment Policy Spokesperson.

        https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/environment-theme

    • I hope for the people’s sake that the system waits to collapse until April or May when not so many would die. Unfortunately it is unlikely to collapse then because in Britain that is probably the lowest power use months (maybe June).

      I definitely would like to see one of these extremely green schemes crash and burn a notional grid though.

  20. Nonsense, what crisis? As our CO2 emissions continue to overheat the planet it will become so warm in Britain in the next 5-10 years that home heating will no longer be required. The corresponding reduction in demand will mean Britain’s vastly improved and ‘greened’ grid will comfortably handle requirements. Honestly, you deniers, do we have to spell out everything to you?

  21. Which shows how party political this is becoming. The image on this piece is based upon an old Tory party poster from back in the 80s. (below)

    But I have to say that simply blaming the Labour party is a bit off. They may have started the problem, but it was Cameron who came to power: hugging huskies, putting a windmill on his house, and saying he was the Greenest prime minister ever. It was Cameron who failed to make a decision on nuclear power for another five years (after Blair had already prevaricated for ten years), and so we still have no replacement nuclear power stations.

    And it is Cameron who has been closing down coal fired power stations, and replacing them with the Strategic Reserve formed by fields of small diesel generators. Because, as you know, diesel is sooo much cleaner than coal. And it was Cameron who has just wasted another £ billion on discovering that carbon capture does not work.

    And despite Cameron’s rooftop windmill producing just enough power to charge a mobile ‘phone, and being condemned by the council as noisy and antisocial (he was forced to take it down), he still went on to subsidise the larger variety. As if scaling up a disaster would make it better, instead of just resulting in an even bigger disaster. Cameron is a walking disaster for the nation. A formerly first world nation being run by the kids in a kindergarten.

    Last one out, please turn the lights off.

    • Ralf, you forgot to add that Scumbag Camoron’s father-in-law is raking in over £300k a year in green subsidies from Joe Soap for renting his land to the wind-farming racketeers. Gotta keep Sam happy.

    • Ralf

      It isn’t particularly Cameron’s fault. The reason so many Coal-fired power stations are being forced to close can be found in the European Large Combustion Plant directive (2001/80/EC) introduced in the same year Cameron became an MP and 4 years into the last Labour Government’s 13 year term in office.

      The other main reason for the sorry state of the UK’s energy generation system lies with the Climate Change Act 2008 which sets out by how much, and by when, the UK must reduce its CO2 emissions. This Act, introduced and pushed by Ed Milliband, the last Labour SoS for Energy and Climate Change, was passed by an overwhelming majority of MPs, with only 3 (all, incidentally Conservative) voting against.

      Couple that with the fact that both Secretaries of State in the Coalition were from the Lib. Dem. party and you can see that this is not a party political issue at all. They are all equally guilty and, as I posted in the previous article on this subject, it is a perfect demonstration that stupidity knows no political limits.

      Oh and, yes, John Archer’s point should be made repeatedly. Sir Reginald Sheffield, 8th Baronet and father-in-law to our current vacuous prime minister, must indeed be kept happy so as to avoid Sam having a hissy fit and (presumably) banishing Cameron to the spare bedroom.

      • It is interesting.
        How this Directive works?
        Poland produces 93% of its electricity from coal (black and lignite).
        It has biggest coal (lignite) power plant in the world in Belchatów (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Station).
        Government says that this situation will not change in next 20-30 years – no big coal power plants will be closed.
        Poland is in EU.

        So – directive works only for UK or directive is useful as excuse for UK government?

      • It is interesting.
        UK is member of EU. UK is closing its coal power plants.
        Poland is member of EU. 93% of electricity in Poland is supplied by coal (black and lignite). Biggest coal (lignite) power plant in the world is in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Station).
        Polish government says that such situation is likely to last in next 20 years. Poland is not going to close ANY big coal power plant in close future.

        So – is directive culprit in UK or is directive handy excuse for UK government?

      • >>It isn’t particularly Cameron’s fault.

        Great Britain is (was) a sovereign nation. It can do what it likes. If EU regulations are stupid and likely to result in social, industrial and economic hardship, David Cameron has the right and power to raise a middle finger and declare “swivel”.

        The fact that Cameron is following every EU directive to the letter, no matter how absurd or painful it is, IS CAMERON’S FAULT. A patriotic prime minister would have stood up for Britain, which means that Cameron is either a poodle or a traitor.

        R

      • Hear, hear, RalphEllis, 2:09pm — given that Cameron has not even tried to counter the socialists, here, there are only two options (assuming he isn’t being blackmailed beyond what an average human being could be expected to resist):

        1. Incompetent.
        OR
        2. Treacherous.

      • ralfellis, Janice Moore

        Spectacular missing of the point.

        The crucial point in my post was the word “particularly”.

        In any case, the one thing Cameron or any other Prime Minister can’t do is “raise a middle finger and declare “swivel” ” since various governments of both left and right have repeatedly confirmed the primacy of EU legislation over domestic law. This is enshrined in the European Communities Act (1972) as amended at various times. Yes Cameron is a euro-enthusiast and will always do what Brussels demands but the same is true of all previous Prime Ministers since Heath, with the possible exception of M. Thatcher, although she was responsible for signing the UK up to the Single Market without the right safeguards. Any attempt to do such a thing would of necessity be struck down in the British courts.

        So my gripe with the post isn’t anything to do with thinking Cameron is any better than his predecessors – he certainly isn’t – but to raise him to the post of uber-demon is to ignore completely anything done before 2015. And yes, I know he became Prime Minister in 2010 but part of the deal to get him to that position was to surrender energy policy to the Lib. Dems and in particular the extremely corrupt convicted criminal Chris Huhne.

        Those of you who don’t know much about UK politics are prone to making spectacular errors* and to hold Cameron solely or principally responsible for the catastrophe which is the UK’s so-called energy policy is one of them. And before anyone levels the charge of ‘right-wing’ or even ‘Tory’ at me, my views are and have been for many years that they’re all equally responsible and I refuse to let any of them off the hook.

        *The reason that I don’t comment on the many posts which involve US politics is that I don’t know much about it.

      • Dear Mr. Green Genes,

        “Particularly” does not save your “point.” What RalphEllis and I wrote is not inconsistent with your (1:16am) “point” — as written, as you amply confirmed at 2:12am. . That we did not merely echo you appears to be your beef. We amplified. Consider for a moment, O Pompous One, …. that if two intelligent, generally like-minded, people misunderstand your writing, the fault may not be theirs.

        Sincerely,

        Janice

      • “O Pompous One”

        I consider that to have the above levelled at me by a religious maniac is a badge of honour.

  22. France starts decommissioning some of its nuclear stations next year. Will they have the capacity to export over the interconnector (at this moment 4.2% of UK demand).?

    • Depends on whether Germany and Holland need power also. The highs that tend to have no wind also tend to cover all of northern Europe. Its not that big a place.

  23. Decentralization of electrical supply pending. With all the loss of efficiency and pollution controls. People of means will be fine.

    • For the same reason millions of gallons of water were diverted to the delta smelt during a drought that was destroying farm crops. Greens always assume someone else will either solve their problems or suffer for them when they promote their ideas.

    • Or maybe for the same reason that Merkel’s Energiewende has “wended” back to brown coal? Namely, everybody is thinking green but nobody is thinking straight.

      Electric cars have their limited uses, but as expressions of piety and green fetishism they constitute yet another white elephant to trample the developed West.

  24. On the 19th January, 2016 at 19:00 hours wind power supplied to the national grid fell to 0.14% of the nation’s demand. In other words, wind power has to be treated as totally redundant.

  25. Seeing the UK from outside of it, by 2025 the people who populate that place will all keep warm by burning camel dung!

    • But such product will still be heavily taxed and government controlled dung and with high import duties to stabilize the domestic market. The steady flow of government revenue is the top priority after all.

  26. Where have these people been. I read about this potential problem in 2006, ten years ago. It was in a very perceptive article by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph. However, as usual, nobody in a position to do something about it was listening.

  27. If this nonsense goes on much longer, the people will begin to notice that there will be a problem, and they will not be happy. Unhappy voters are a great political problem, probably greater than CAGW.

  28. People change attitudes and values only when confronted with consequence. Widespread blackouts can be useful in the fight to sober policy makers and their green supporters. Meanwhile, stay warm…

  29. I know that the Sun (the newspaper, not the star) is one of the most reliable source in the world, but you should read the original report (something written by engineer, not journalist.)
    It recommends to invest in renewable energy to solve the problem of the energy crisis, which is mainly created because they decided to reduce the subsidies of fossil.

    [??? .mod]

    • You are either very late to the party (and don’t know the history of this story), or you’re seriously confused about who did what.

    • I did not read the engineer’s report. If true, what a shame. No genuine student of engineering who took his or her studies seriously could write such a thing. Your comment, 2PetitV’s, was helpful, though (assuming you are correctly reading the engineer (?!)’s report) in answer my question about this weird sentence in the “Sun” report (linked in above main post):

      … report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers today.

      … said Britain could have less than half the electricity it needs because plans to build nuclear and gas power stations are “unrealistic”.

      My Q: “Unrealistic” — why? … (after reading above comment)…. Oh. I see.

      Answer: Artificial market constraints courtesy of windmill-powered M.P.’s.

  30. Now, when that nice Mr Putin gets his Nord Stream pipeline flowing, and if the overthrow of that “murderous Assad regime” gets Qatari gas flowing through a Turkish hub…

    Along with Norwegian etc imports and the incineration of American forests (they only use the tops and tailings, right?), Britain will have green-ish energy to, er, burn.

    Of course, the North Sea isn’t what it used to be, but if you can keep those Nigerian tribespeople and Algerian sunnis peaceful there’ll still be oil for the gennie. And it looks like there’ll be lots of gennies to fill!

      • After all the fuss and the zillions frittered, Germany is back to its own brown coal and (even more) Russian gas. (Those solar panels at 50+ degrees north are largely decor.)

        Now if Merkel co-operates with Greek debt demands and Turkish blackmail they might stop sending her all those non-Syrian Syrians to feed.

        Just as well the Green Angel has got lots of lignite handy. She gunna need to burn lots of brown to pay for all the green.

  31. Sent to a few friends in the UK this morning:

    Re: “Energy bills will soar as green policies shut coal-fired power stations and cause an “electricity supply crisis”, experts say. Prices will be forced up as the UK has to import more power, according to a report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers today. –Craig Woodhouse, The Sun, 26 January 2016”.

    Congratulations to the IME for their conclusion – the IME is correct, but rather late in the game.

    As stated previously, we predicted this severe energy shortfall in our 2002 written debate with the warmist Pembina Institute. We wrote in 2002:
    (until recently posted on the APEGA website, now at) http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

    8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    I wrote the UK Stern Commission in 2005 that the UK’s approach to alleged manmade global warming and green energy was ill-founded and would greatly increase energy costs, with no benefit to the environment.

    In 2013 I wrote an open letter to Baroness Verma, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. making similar points.

    I suggest we are now proven correct.

    Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.

    I suggest there is a two-year time limit to launch a lawsuit for Negligence and Misfeasance in a Public Office against the parties who foisted this costly green-energy fraud on society.

    Regards to all, Allan

  32. Watching Britain launch itself into one lunatic escapade after another it’s very hard to remember they were at the forefront of the industrial revolution and built a global empire. The expression ‘the sun never sets on the British Empire’ has now become ‘the sun has set on Britain.”

  33. One wonders if the data that shows renewable’s cause an increase in electricity in Europe, why are the leaders continuing the insane policy. Look at the data here:

  34. Catcracking
    January 26, 2016 at 6:44 pm

    Totally awesome data. In a better world the “Renewables” disaster in Europe would be noted here in the USA so that we won’t behave like a bunch of lemmings.

    Unless Donald Trump gets elected you can bet that the political elite will ensure that us “little people” are forced over the precipice of “Unsustainability” (aka unaffordable electric power).

  35. Catcracking,
    Here on the “Space Coast” I pay $0.10 per kVAh for my electricity. The cheapest electricity on your graph above is 0.12 Euros ( $0.13 per kVAh).

    Florida is far from being the home of “cheap electricity” while Connecticut has the most expensive power in the USA at $0.17 per kVAh, It is shocking to note that no European nation can match the cost of electric power in Florida, while more than a dozen European nations charge more for electricity than Connecticut.

    You folks need to heed the Republic of China that is building one Nuke per month and one coal fired electric power generating station per week:
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/electric-power-in-florida/

    • ‘You folks need to heed the Republic of China that is building one Nuke per month and one coal fired electric power generating station per week:’

      They are also installing most of the wind power too. Not sure what that leaves one to conclude. In 2014 they installed 45% of the installed new capacity of wind and are by far the largest wind power producer in the world with 31% of total global installed wind capacity as at end 2014.

      • Really doesn’t matter “why” China did that (could be a purely political maneuver).

        Keep your eye on the ball, Hop: Wind power can NEVER supply enough energy to power an economy useful to the modern world of any meaningful scale.

        What % of China’s total power is supplied by windmills?

        There you go.

  36. 26 Jan:BM Magazine UK: Threat of power crisis is growing, warns CBI
    Tens of billions of pounds worth of investment in power stations, wind farms and other critical energy projects needed to guarantee reliable electricity supplies are in jeopardy because of a failure by ministers to reach key policy decisions, the CBI has warned.
    In a letter released today by the business lobby group, and seen in advance by The Times, it argues that Britain is facing the threat of a supply crunch because of a shortage of investment and uncertainty around the future subsidies available for low carbon power…
    “UK industrial firms already pay higher electricity costs than EU competitors, and spare capacity on our grid is getting squeezed out as we phase out older power stations,” says the letter, which is co-signed by 18 executives from some of Britain’s biggest companies, including ScottishPower, Ineos, Tata Steel and BOC…
    Among other things, the CBI is seeking an extension beyond 2021 of the Levy Control Framework, a key green subsidy budget without which many wind and renewable energy projects will be unviable. It is also urging an extension of the Carbon Price Support mechanism beyond 2020. The lack of any clarity after that date muddies the economics of any power project due to come onstream…
    ScottishPower is set to shut down Longannet, Britain’s second-biggest coal power station, in March because of increasingly tough emissions legislation. The loss of Longannet is likely to exacerbate electricity shortages at periods of peak demand, raising the likelihood of supply disruptions.
    Last year Ms Rudd called for the closure of all UK coal plants within ten years, but no clear plan has been developed for how this will be achieved without creating power shortages…
    http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/threat-of-power-crisis-is-growing-warns-cbi/

    26 Jan: UK Govt: What the Government is doing to secure investment in clean, secure and affordable energy
    From: Department of Energy & Climate Change
    In response to a letter about energy policy in the Times newspaper on 26 January 2016, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd said:…
    “We know that old and dirty coal, and some ageing nuclear power plants will be closing over the next few years, and that’s precisely why we’ve put in place a long-term plan to ensure we have secure, affordable and clean energy supplies that can be relied on now and in the future.
    “We are the first country to propose an end date to using unabated coal and we will do so in a way that maintains energy security, which comes first…
    The top 10 things the government is doing to secure investment in clean secure energy:…
    4.Set out world leading plans to close all unabated coal-fired power stations by 2025 ***IF WE’RE CONFIDENT THAT THE SHIFT TO NEW GAS CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE NECESSARY
    TIMELINES…
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-the-government-is-doing-to-secure-investment-in-clean-secure-and-affordable-energy

  37. I am actually a supporter of green power. Hydro, even unreliables like wind and solar have a place. But the devil is in the detail. And the detail I need answered is what are your priorities. In other words, when the wind stops at night (yes it happens – South Australia had a major power outage because of that): who’s power will keep going? In what order do you “shed load”, ie turn off the lights?

    So, the machinery of government can be assumed to be so important it has to keep going, no matter what.
    Likewise politicians.
    And the police because correct thinking needs to be enforced.
    And then greens, because it’s obvious.

    But then where does that leave industry?
    Hospitals?
    You and me?
    – in the dark, I suspect !

    • Simple – running on diesel. Dirty great gen sets dotted all over the place chucking out particulates and NO2. To say nothing of the noise nuicance for some of us. Thank you green idiots!

    • The major number of consumers (domestic) have little realisation how much power is actually used by industry, and how small a market their homes constitute. They also do not realise how dependent industrial processes are on a continuous supply compared with homes. Productivity in cities with unreliable power is really poor compared with the opposite because without reliable power one cannot manufacture anything efficiently.

      Green policing or wish police cannot make up for lost production. Some have a vague notion that if everyone had these interruptions the standard of living would drop and that’s alright because we consume too much. This fails to accommodate the fact that investment remains high while productivity is low – in short, it is inefficient. Much more investment in resources and labour for scant return because they work only part of the time. It would be like building everyone two houses and living in one.

      Resource consumption will increase without benefit. Consider how many windmills would be required – the resources involved – to generate anything close to the power of a gas turbine. Windmills won’t reduce resource consumption, they increase it because of their inherent inefficiencies.

      • “have little realisation how much power is actually used by industry”…

        If you have ever been to an aluminum or steel smelting plant, there you’d feel the electric power shake the atoms of your bones.

        It is mind boggling how much power this places use.

        All the flower children, engaged in self pleasuring, worry about the power used in their USB LED keyboard light….They have ZERO knowledge, hence, zero perspective…..and they vote…for drama teachers.

      • Thankyou Paul. Yes I have posted before about a Bessemer Converter when I really was talking of an EAF. Yes, 80MW+ typically. Never seen a solar or wind powered EAF making metals for Apples etc.

  38. Just to open a bottle of 2016 Schadenfreude from Down Under, recall that if Germany exports electrons anywhere, on average 28% of them little particles or wavelets of stringy things (my understanding of sub-atomic matters is, as you can surmise, limited) are generated by digging up and burning that Greenest of Green fuels.

    Lignite.

    Another triumph of Die Grünen…..

  39. When electricity prices soar and power shortages become common, the populace will revolt and send all the cagw controllers packing. It will take a while after that to recommission the coal fired generators. The greens will never recover after that as people will remember that bit of history.

    • “When electricity prices soar and power shortages become common, the populace will revolt . . .”

      They are so arrogant and narrow-minded that this scenario has never occurred to them.

  40. It’s important for the technically minded and responsible parties to speak up now so they in turn are not part of the excuse list later when the finger pointing and scapegoating process starts.

  41. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/26/the-value-of-petroleum-fuels/comment-page-1/#comment-2107795

    [excerpt]

    I have worked in the energy industry for much of my career.

    When challenged on this question by green fanatics, I explain that that fossil fuels keep their families from freezing and starving to death.

    Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

    A few facts:

    Wind Power is what warmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.

    Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:

    The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.

    The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.

    The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
    http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
    (apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).

    Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
    and
    Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).

    Same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).

    This was all obvious to us decades ago – we published similar conclusions in 2002.

    Trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.

    **********
    Today’s comment:

    The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
    http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2015/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2015-primary-energy-section.pdf

    Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
    4% Nuclear,
    7% Hydro,
    and 2% Renewables.

    That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.

    This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.

    “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    We also write in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2H2017. Bundle up!

    Regards to all, A

  42. Via The GWPF Energy bills will soar as green policies shut coal-fired power stations and cause an “electricity supply crisis”, experts say. Prices will be forced up as the UK has to import more power, according to a report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers today. –Craig Woodhouse, The Sun, 26 January 2016 The UK …

    What did Japan do to compensate for the large power supply loss due to shutting down all its nuclear plants for several years immediately following the loss of Fukushima Daiichi Site by tsunami?

    Well they did many things. But, one critically important thing they did was to immediately import a very large number of already manufactured gas turbine-generator units for peak demand periods; while also really ramping up imports of gas.

    Expensive as hell due to urgent supply/demand premium, but they had to do it.

    UK will probably procrastinate due to the dream of green and visions of COP21 ideas, then UK will be forced into a too late to do anything else reactionary effort. I think one of the things they then will need to do is the gas turbine generator route like Japan.

    John

    • And where did Japan get all that natural gas?
      – from Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports costing about four to eight times as much as North American natural gas.

      Oh Fukushima!

  43. Re: richardscourtney 1/27/16 @ 12:06pm.

    Students should heed what richardscourtney writes. Feeding it back in PoliSci 101 will get them high marks. What he writes is academic, i.e., impractical. He is right about an intellectual difference between Fascism and Communism, but it is a microscopic view based on the propaganda of the movements, not on their reality. Some suggest the left-right dichotomy lies on a circle, not a line, the Equator in some socio-political sphere of influence. From the top down, both isms remove power from the people to enslave them under one person, the omnipotent dictator.

    RSC at one point says, I proclaim socialism which attempts to give everyone the ability to live the way they each individually want to live. Is a comma missing? Without a comma after socialism, RSC hedges his bet by proclaiming only that socialism in which the people are free. Or, what seems more likely, RSC proclaima all “socialism, which attempts to free the people”?

    Either way, socialism doesn’t do that. It is no more for the good of the people than was the regulation of DDT, the dietary fat scare, or the anti-CO2 movement. Socialism is political environmentalism. It’s for the good of the dictators and for tenure. These movements work by taking freedoms and well-being from the people, which the people resist by working around the rules, answered by the government handing down more rules. The end game would be complete enslavement, except it is historically wrecked by war, rebellion, or bankruptcy. Socialism is unique, being self-limiting.

    A strong movement exists in the US to restore RSC’s ideal, recognized as individualism or anti-socialism. That movement is not likely to prevail. The national debt, a legacy of the left, represents a massive expansion of the money supply. It is, by the better definition, inflation, but the inevitable price rise has been forestalled by the concurrent low velocity of money. The next administration, odds-on Republican, will relieve that bottleneck, immediately cutting back on regulations and restoring confidence, but thereby unwittingly, like everything GOP, unleashing perhaps the worst bout of inflation-in-name the US has ever known. The response will be price controls, shortages, and more regulations, not less. The combination will limit the GOP to one term, and socialism will be reinvigorated, a backdoor win for richardscourtney.

    It’s the stupid party vs. the evil party. And while they duke it out, the climate will lag behind the Sun, the ocean will quickly regulate the CO2, and both parties will remain clueless.

    P.S. Apologies to Tony and all for yesterday’s lengthy double posting. Explanation on request.

  44. Don’t need no steenking power stations…..we got Demand Side Regulation!
    Not enough electric stuff in de wires, cut off dem big users den….

  45. Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
    Letting the days go by, water flowing underground

    Into the blue again, after the money’s gone

    Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

    Same as it ever was,
    same as it ever was,
    same as it ever was
    Same as it ever was,

    same

    as it ever was,
    same as it ever was.

    Same as it ever was,
    same

    as it ever was.

Comments are closed.