Bishop Hill Lights on, factories off
Oct 26, 2014 Climate: Parliament Energy: grid There is some interesting stuff around in this morning's papers, which is good to see.
In the Mail on Sunday, David Rose has been taking a look at the network of green billionaires and trust funds that fuels the UK's green blob.
Meanwhile, in the Sunday Telegraph, Ed Davey is unequivocal that the lights are not going to go out. But there's a catch:
To boost supply, “mothballed” plants could be brought back into use. Generating companies could also be told to “max-generate”, running at full capacity for a short-term surge. New demand-side contingencies are potentially more disruptive. In the event of a sudden shortage of power, big industrial consumers such as factories would be paid to switch on emergency backup generators and produce their own power.
So, our heroic Secretary of State is telling us that he has got the country's energy market into such a shambles that factories are going to have to be switched off to keep the lights on.
A scandal.
Reader Comments (64)
What is trully frightening both in the UK and Europe is that the polis have no idea how bad things could get. I saw that labour arse crawler with the lithpse on BBCTV today spouting his religious belief in AGW. Frightening. In france we have Royal and Hollande along with Barroso and Juncker in the EU.
Well, you get what you vote for.
Oct 26, 2014 at 7:00 PM northernont
Never a truer word.
What seems to have overlooked is this, from David Rose.
"but she( Bryony) hit the jackpot. her proposal was taken up first by the new Tory leader, David Cameron, and followed by the the then-Labour government".
So please reserve your brickbats for the man ultimately responsible, the most disastrous Prime Minister ever.
When we ask why he stuck his neck out ? We got the answer from Geoffrey Lean back in 2011, when he asked - "Will Greenpeace consider renaming one of its ships SAMANTHA CAMERON,after its former supporter ?"
As we saw yesterday "Dave" is an ill-informed bully, capable only of responding, unless prompted by the very green and very dominant Samantha.
I re-read David Rose's article more closely and I would just add kudos to Barry Woods and Ben Pile both of whom David credits, and I don't think I have ever read of a more corrupt and widespread scandal than this.
Ed is a dead man walking , come the next election therefore he will be looking for some nice little earners, that actual don't require him to think, outside of politics , so if he can line himself up some fat directorship with the renewable industry or some NGO that is currently 'enjoying ' government largesse he will.
I would have more faith in Ed and his gang if they agree to 'only ' use energy from renewable resources, no set aside tricks involved , if none is available then they get none. So which one of the 'renewable can do it all ' wants to be the first to try and live under this idea ?
What exactly do you get for €864,163,750?
Do you get underground bunkers? New hospitals? Raods? Emergency evac centres?
What do you get for this kind of outlay earmarked for Climate Action?
in 2008/2009 - the ECF really didn't want to Eu/Uk t have any coal power stations...
Grants:
Ecological Institute for Sustainable Development (EISD) (Miskolc, Hungary)
Grant year: 2009
Project Description: To support a campaign against conventional coal-fired power generation sources in the Czech Republic.
ELP Partnership (Leuven, Belgium)
Germanwatch e.V. (Bonn, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a legal challenge against the Moorburg unabated coal plant on the basis of water use and impacts. BUND LV Niedersachsen e.V. (Hannover, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support campaigns against conventional coal-fired power plants in Lower Saxony, Germany.
BUND Mecklenburg Vorpommern e.V . (Schwerin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To analyze and present alternatives to a planned coal-fired power plant in Lubmin.
Bürger Initiative Stopp Staudinger (Hainburg, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen the local mobilization against conventional coal-fired power plants in the cities around the Staudinger coal-fired power plant in Germany.
Campact e.V. (Verden, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support public advocacy efforts for a coal moratorium.
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To educate voters and policymakers on the impacts of coal in the Northrhine Westphalia region.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To campaign against the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Germany.
The Centre (Brussels, Belgium)
ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide legal support for an anti-coal campaign at Kingsnorth and other proposed sites, including coordinating the public inquiry or judicial review process.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide legal analysis and legislative drafting support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) engagement.
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To coordinate legal strategies around anti-coal campaigns, particularly at the local level.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To draft a feasibility study analysing the legal mechanisms for halting the construction of new coal-fired power plants by local authorities.
Die Klima-Allianz (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support anti-coal campaign efforts on a planned conventional coal-fired power plant In Lubmin, Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support research on alternative options to the proposed new coal-fire power plant in Berlin, Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support anti-coal campaign efforts by local groups in Germany.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To established a Coal Campaign Coordination Center that supports and coordinates local initiatives against coal-fired power plants.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a campaign against new unabated coal-fired power plants in Scotland.
Friends Of The Earth Trust (London, UK)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a coalition of civil society, industry and unions to advocate for a fiscal framework that accelerates investment in a low-carbon energy infrastructure.
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V. (FÖS) (Berlin, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To establish and coordinate a coalition of "Economists Against Coal" in Germany.
Greenpeace UK (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support education and outreach to the media and policymakers on renewable and low-carbon energy options.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To educate parliamentarians in Westminster on the climate impact of coal and the need for a wider consideration of the issues involved with the proposed coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth.
Grüne Liga, Umweltgruppe Cottbus (Cottbus, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen the local mobilization against conventional coal power plants in the cities around the Jänschwalde coal-fired power plant (including in Berlin).
Indepen (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support an independent study on energy security and low-carbon energy alternatives to coal in the UK.
Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) (Dublin, Ireland)
Institute for Public Policy Research (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To conduct qualitative and quantitative research on public opinion towards renewable energy in the UK.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To analyze the political and economic implications of alternative policy options that deter the new build of coal-fired power generation.
Klima Allianz C/O Naturschutzbund NRW (Düsseldorf, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To strengthen local opposition against new unabated coal-fired power plants in Northrhine Westphalia, Germany.
Kohlefreies Mainz e.V. (Mainz, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support legal representation and experts in legal challenge against the proposed Mainz coal-fired power plant.
Mantra PR (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To provide media outreach support for the UK coal campaign.
NABU Brandenburg (Potsdam, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a referendum to "Stop Surface Mining" in Brandenburg, Germany.
Oko Institute e.V. (Berlin, Germany)
Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, The Netherlands)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a campaign against new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Netherlands.
Urgewald e.V. (Sassenberg, Germany)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To advise on financial and economic strategies for the anti-coal campaign in Germany.
World Development Movement (London, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To support a grassroots campaign against a proposed coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support the development of opposition movements around other potential new coal plants in England based on the model developed by WDM around the Kingsnorth campaign.
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support local opposition against the proposed power plant at Kingsnorth.
WWF European Policy Office (Brussels, Belgium)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To develop a strategy and coalition in support of regulations to limit CO2 from the EU power sector and promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment.
WWF Germany (Frankfurt, Germany)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support a legal challenge against a proposed coal-fired power plant in Lubmin.
WWF Greece (Athens, Greece)
Grant Year: 2009
Project Description: To advocate against the introduction of hard coal into the national energy mix in Greece.
WWF UK (Surrey, United Kingdom)
Grant Year: 2008
Project Description: To support advocacy efforts for a CO2 emissions performance standard for power plants in the UK
I'm sure there are others here that have experience in the management and operation of power generation facilities and processing plants, I thinkthey would echo my comments below.
For the lay person simply subtracting demand from generation capacity does not impart the real risks.
Firstly the location of generation capacity versus the demand can be an issue for the distribution system hence pushing it to tripping limits.
Secondly, and I think the more serious risk, is cascading outages of generating equipment and the damage that can result.
For example, when you push a power generation system to the limit it can and does result in instability and controllability problems. For a steam based facility severe damage can result when dropped off line at the limit of capacity. Water in the radiant section tubes can "swell" dramatically when the boiler is allowed or is directed to vent, that "swell" can cascade into water carryover into the super-heater dis-engagement feed drum which will then carry over liquid water into the super-heater section. All the above described events, and many other possible modes, lead to tube fouling, tube failure and tube cracking.
If pushed, some, operators will be tempted to operate with small tube leaks which will, in short order, damage adjacent tubes, refractory lining and even boiler wall breaches. A death spiral. Planned boiler rebuilds take months, short notice rebuilds take a lot longer due to none availability of materials and skilled labour.
Gas turbine based generating units have their own load shed induced failure modes.
The bottom line is that pushing equipment to its max capacity then load shedding will seriously degrade the reliability beyond the normally expected values.
Do not be surprised if "the situation is worse than expected" to use a popular climate scientist statement.
For those without an industry background an analogy would be driving your car at maximum engine rpm through all the gears and then constantly slamming on the brakes, all the time.
In reply to Mike Jackson,
Yes indeed Mike, many parallels indeed. I do enjoy reading Janet's considered thoughts, I think she is a very shrewd and keen observer of our political sphere and to which the good lady speaks much truth.
Some of us here are old enough to remember the Three Day Week introduced by the Conservative government to save fuel and reduce power consumption during the miners' strike in the winter of 1974 when Edward Heath was Prime Minister. Perhaps Ed Davey could dust off Ted Heath's plans.
While the Three Day Week was in force Heath called a general election to decide "Who Governs the Country?" The response of the voters was, in effect, "obviously not you!"
Will history repeat itself?
Roy
My favourite things as a 1970s school kid were David Bowie, Alice Cooper and STRIKES.
Schools Out !
So to keep some of the lights on, we have to turn some of them off?
In what way does this constitute keeping the lights on?
So to keep some of the lights on, we have to turn some of them off?
In what way does this constitute keeping the lights on?
ECF directly fund other think tanks who in turn make policy suggestions to political parties - helping them with their election manifesto.
For example the ECF funded the IPPR report:Brighter future: How tackling climate change can deliver better living standards and shared prosperity
The IPPR were in the news recently themselves. The charity is being investigated by the Charity Commission after a complaint that it was too close to the Labour party.
In fact one of the co-authors of this IPPR report is Will Straw, Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for the Rossendale & Darwen constituency. Young Will is of course the son of former Labour foreign secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw.
Private generators are not particularly novel.
In the 1990s British Steel (RIP) used to stop rolling steel in winter early evenings but kept its generators running to sell into the grid. The steelmen thought it absurd but the energy economists called it market forces.