5 Filters

Millions warned of power cuts this winter

"Six million households could face blackouts this winter because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ministers have been warned, as they look to bolster electricity supplies by prolonging the life of coal and nuclear power stations.

The Times has been told that the government’s “reasonable” worst-case scenario, which has been drawn up by officials from across Whitehall, says that there could be widespread gas shortages if Russia goes further in cutting off supplies to the EU.

A minister said the briefing suggested that electricity could have to be rationed for up to six million homes at the start of next year, mostly at peaks in the morning and evening. The curbs could last more than a month, causing energy prices to rise again and leaving GDP lower than forecast for years to come.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, has written to the owners of Britain’s three remaining coal-fired power stations to ask them to stay open for longer than planned. They were due to close in September under plans to phase them out entirely by 2024 to reduce emissions.

Hinkley Point B, a nuclear power station in Somerset, could also be given an 18-month extension. The plant, which is nearly 50 years old, was due to be decommissioned this summer. Britain buys less than 4 per cent of its gas directly from Russia but is connected to European markets. The EU typically gets 40 per cent of its gas from Russia and its members have continued paying it hundreds of millions of euros a day since the invasion.

The worst-case scenario is understood to raise concerns that Norwegian imports of gas, on which Britain is reliant, could more than halve because of increased EU demand. Imports of liquefied natural gas, which are brought into Britain by tankers, could also halve because of greater competition.

The modelling is understood to assume that Britain will receive no imports of gas from “interconnectors” in the Netherlands and Belgium as both countries face their own emergencies.

The shortages would force Britain to implement its own gas emergency plans, which would lead to the closure of gas-fired power stations. Heavy industrial users of gas would also be told to stop using it.

The closure of the plants would lead to a shortage of electricity, forcing the government, in effect, to ration. It would be turned off on weekdays at peak times in the morning, between 7am and 10am, and in the evenings, between 4pm and 9pm. Gas supply to homes would be unaffected.

Officials are also said to have drawn up an even bleaker strategy in the event of Russia cutting off gas entirely to the EU. It suggests that energy blackouts could start in December and last for three months, with blackouts both on weekdays and weekends.

The government is in talks with Centrica about reopening a natural gas storage facility off the east coast of England, with more than £1 billion of subsidies. It was closed in 2017 after being deemed too costly to maintain.

There are concerns in government that gas prices could remain high next year as the war between Russia and Ukraine becomes more entrenched.

Last week Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, announced a £21 billion cost of living package to limit the impact of price rises this October, but has not ruled out taking further action next year.

Boris Johnson opened the cabinet meeting last week by asking ministers: “How many of you actually remember the 1970s?” The comments were widely interpreted as a tacit criticism of their youth. Sunak was born in the 1980s.

Miners picketed power stations in a pay dispute, leading to mass blackouts and forcing businesses to close. Edward Heath, the Conservative prime minister, introduced the three-day week in December 1973 to preserve stocks of coal. Nearly all businesses had to limit their electricity use to three days a week and were banned from operating for long hours on those days.

A Whitehall source said: “As a responsible government it is right that we plan for every single extreme scenario, however unlikely. Britain is well prepared for any supply disruptions. Unlike EU countries, our North Sea gas reserves are being pumped out at full pelt, Norwegian rigs are directly connected into the UK, and we have the second-largest LNG import infrastructure in Europe — whereas Germany has none. Given the EU’s historic dependence on Putin’s gas, the winter could be very hard for countries on the Continent.”" Millions warned of power cuts this winter | News | The Times

Well done everyone!

3 Likes

“…because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine…” Knee-jerk Westen mediawhores’ lying bs! Because the grovellingly-obedient Euro-underlings of the DC Swamp gics are following orders and cutting off their noses to spite their faces, more like. The carrots-and-sticks they’re being shown must be sizeable…

I any case, this - energy shortages - was always in the pipeline. If it hadn’t been triggered by the SMO, it would have been something else. The proximate-cause is neither here nor there. It’s the inexorable underlying trend that’s mandating these things. (aka ‘The Limits To Growth’.)

4 Likes

“The carrots-and-sticks they’re being shown must be sizeable” Aren’t many already “in-hoc” anyway (“here’s one we prepared earlier children!”), like Blair was?

1 Like

With regard to coal fired power stations, modern technology makes it easy to reduce greatly the pollution from burning coal.

There’s more than 900 years-worth of coal beneath the ground in Britain; that is, before Thatcher purposely flooded all the coal mines. Even after this act of vandalism the coal can still be retrieved.

We don’t have an energy shortage. What we have is a purposely engineered energy shortage.

3 Likes

This is starting to look like a deliberate take down of the economy and industrial society in the UK isn’t it?

Every choice here from the sanctions on Russia to the refusal of countries like Poland, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands to pay for gas and expect Russia to keep supplying it, is totally self inflicted.

What is the end game here? Keeping 50 year old nuclear power stations struggling on is not a good option. Increasing the burning of fossil fuels is suicidal. Nothing we’re doing in this orgy of self flagellation is hurting Russia… What is our point?

Either the folks who are running the show are incompetent beyond measure, and willing to risk violence and riots across the UK, or they are competent and working to a different plan than the one put out to the public.

Which way do folks here want to bet?

4 Likes

Can’t agree with that, Rob. There really is an energy crisis. It isn’t down to fiddling little transient upsets like the SMO in the Ukraine, but a long-term systemic - and global - trend, which simply can’t be reversed.

Everyone who notes that there’s oil down here, and coal down there, has to come to terms with the non-negotiable physics realities of EROEI, energy returned on energy invested (not just money), which dictate that much of what remains will never be raised and burnt, because it costs more energy to get the stuff out, transport and process it than the net energy yield at the user end of the process. It’s a net loss.

Worse still, even before the ratio gets down to net profit equal to or less than net cost, even whilst the ratio is still around 5 to 1, the socio-economic stresses of steering so much of total energy flows towards getting more energy means that other vital parts of the economy - non-optional, essential parts, that is - get starved of what they need and begin to dilapidate towards collapse. Things fall apart. The shrinking away of the sine qua non master resource - energy - guarantees it.

If you do the total energy calculations, it turns out that trying to get out that coal now would run into exactly this brick wall. There are already-known oil bodies that fall into the same bind. They too will never be raised because of the iron realities of EROEI. (It’s a numeracy thing… :wink: :slight_smile: )

Wriggle how we will, we are all going to be made to face the basic, physical fact that the historically-recent huge global splurge of energy - mainly fossil hydrocarbons, but essentially ALL forms of energy of which we know - is now over; it’s beginning its final Long Descent.

From here on, the only path is an inexorably falling net per-capita energy use, globally. We have no option but to adapt future societies to this force majeure.

None of the above, of course, reduces the vile perfidy of Thatcher, nor the fact that we could have had more coal from what’s down there, if that dreadful creature hadn’t vandalised the mines for political reasons. The EROEI at the time was still just about positive, for a few more years.

The same applies to North Sea oil: But for the utter, short-term, wilfully-blind stupidity of the Thatcher/Reagan ‘vision’, Britain could have been now in the same fortunate position regarding sovereign wealth from oil as Norway is. An independent sovereign Scotland could have been there too, though not any longer…

Tim Morgan’s SEEDS website is useful in clarifying all this: https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com

As is the ever-reliable Gail Tverberg’s ‘Our Finite World’ website: Gail Tverberg | Our Finite World

Also, it’s always useful doing a web search for deep background material with the search terms ‘Professor Charles Hall/EROEI’. This stuff makes the mournful reality clear: we’re heading into constraints and shortages - whatever we do…

Cheers! :slight_smile:

3 Likes

My bet is: a noxious blend of bumbling incompetence within a shagged-out - but still remorselessly entitled - English-raj class, typified by the buffoon Johnson; together with a rabid, irrational hatred of all things Russian, which seems to afflict that lot perennially.

And since the gics can see the storms on the near horizon as well as any other awake-and-paying-attention person, I suspect that they might be aiming for a controlled demolition of the global economy (with an associated big cull of surplus plebs), particularly the economies of Natostan, in the - futile - belief that they can keep control, and land on their oligarch feet amongst the rubble, still in control, still shitting on the rest of us. Blind fools!

2 Likes

We can scrub Rob (and there’s an argument we should have done before), but the trouble is it doesn’t stop the CO2 production…

OR our administration is working for global interests without being cognisant of their end-game…

As ever, Richard Heinberg has some cogent commentary on both the climate-shift issue and the now-inescapable energy crisis:

1 Like

Hi @RobG , there is clearly a race to the bottom in Western economic terms through the adoption of mad “climate change” policies and suicidal sanction policies - I don’t have enough information to decide the degree to which climate change is man-made greenhouse gas created but to be entirely honest only the wealthy or the prepared will weather the current politically created peak in energy prices.
The aged and infirm end of the 99% who are not wealthy and not prepared will be dropping like flies in a cold winter and for these people global warming means absolutely nothing compared with the ultimate question they will ask each day - heat or eat! I don’t believe for one moment that the nationalisation of all coal and oil resources today in Britain with a ramped up coal fired power station building programme, free nationalised rail and bus transport operating in the main on electric grid systems and cancellation of all sanctions policies - would impact even 1% of global warming numbers. Reversal of all privatisations relating to energy and food are obvious measures - if the protection of our people Today is of any concern to anyone.
The theories of global warming have been warped by the inclusion of the term “man-made” when in fact over 70% of Co2 emissions are caused by around 100 companies - where man has no input into policies. ( I can’t recall where I read this but it seemed on the ball at the time).
The theories of the economics of energy production whether from oil or coal or other resource become irrelevant when our magic money-tree has been used to push hundreds of billions of £ into the hands of the wealthy - and could be recovered and put into immediate reversal of our access to life saving energy and food production. The Chinese are opening up scores of coal powered stations every year - we just need a few - always possible if we get rid of the fascists pushing billions into ukraine and overseas arms companies!

In wartime we would forget most policies that were not focused on winning the war - in times of dire need we must do the same, forget all our fancy theories of global warming which maybe 50 years or more away, forget the esoteric analysis of the cost of extracting energy. If it is the only energy available within a short time - people will be dying this year and we can’t blame them for their lack of preparation - they have not been warned by the MSM or politicians, they have had no time or energy to research these things and over the last 2 years most have been operating under hypnotic influence.
Politicians of both main parties, backed up by the MSM, will of course find it easier to blame us and and the Russians and say Oh dear look how many people are dying - if only we had some money to help them - eugenic bastards!

cheers

1 Like

It’s a weather balloon.

Deliberately cause the ‘problem’ but blame it on that madman. (Definitely not the sanctions, oh no.)

Then ‘leak’ the ‘warning’ (a ‘reasonable’ worst-case scenario is a contradiction in terms, and in any case needs to be contextualised by telling us the likelihood) while reassuring us that ‘no responsible’ government (as if) would ever let things get that bad **

Depending on the push back streamline the real ‘solution’ and keep tweaking as you go along. Expect more magic money to be conjured up, given to energy suppliers minus the usual honorarium.

We’ve seen this recently somewhere before.

They know what they’re doing, it’s just we don’t quite know who They are. Clue: it isn’t Joe Biden, it’s not Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Kier Starmer or any of that clique. Might it be Vlad? And/or the CCP? Shrug…

All of the constant nonsense is deliberately stupid and confusing and senseless so that we (the majority of ‘we’ at any rate) stay helpless and docile and grateful and with pitchforks/cudgels gathering cobwebs.

** Oh yes you will. Oh no we won’t. OH YES YOU WILL.

3 Likes

We need to start counting the bodies before they appear as monkey pox victims in the latest ONS “independent, unbiased national open and transparent database”!

cheers

PP, I’m not sure how it’s all going to pan out; but in my humble opinion it’s all been planned by the psychopaths who rule us. Even politicians can’t be that incompetent, and one thing the two years of covid has shown us is that it’s all done in lockstep, worldwide (there’s now literally nowhere on Earth where you can escape from the NWO).

With regard to nuclear, nuclear power stations generally get a licence to operate for 20 years; but that’s now being extended to 40 years, and even 60 years.

The 20 year licence is because a nuclear reactor will fall to bits in short order - look-up ‘neutron bombardment’. This has always been the biggest problem with developing fusion power. It’s not so much the incredibly high temperatures needed for a fusion reaction - which we now sort of have the technology to contain - it’s more that a fusion reactor creates many times more neutron bombardment than a fission reactor, and as such a fusion reactor has a very, very short shelf life (with our present technology).

2 Likes

CJ1, one thing that always strikes me is the huge amounts of lorries on the roads, and the huge amount of container ships on the seas.

(as an aside, these huge container ships burn what is known as ‘bunker fuel’, which is a highly sulfurous form of heavy/crap diesel. Just one of these big container ships chucks out more pollution than a million cars)

It makes one wonder just what all this trade is about, since most of it is transporting goods that no one really needs, beyond being persuaded by advertising agencies that people can’t live without these goods.

4 Likes

That reminds me of the stories of the pre-Christmas Chinese container ships that deliver our plastic Christmas - but wait around until new year when their containers are filled up with the plastic we throw away so they can take it back to China (at a price) for “climate change friendly disposal”!
As you say no-one reports on the container ship fuel pollution - this is certainly news to me, thanks.
I was laboring under the impression that most of the pollution came from the military and the 100 corporates ( maybe the latter include the ship owners?)

cheers

I don’t think you can ignore sea-level rise C…the figures are terrifying…or the fact that the current global situation has come about mainly as a result of the major powers scrabbling for dominance of the remaining fossil fuel resources…there is such a thing as individual responsibility…most of us should learn to function with less, to improve our economy by becoming more efficient in our energy use…we must address the false philosophy that drives particle beam research such as is represented by HARDON colliders and the like…“fusion reactors” are an empyrean pipe dream, they will never produced more energy than it takes to create and maintain a reaction, neither will “dark matter” produce anything more than is needed to create it and maintain its containment… fission too is purely destructive…we don’t see it because we don’t bother to account for the true cost

Why is it not law that all new-builds should feature at least one sustainable energy feature such as; sub-terrestrial heat-pumps, passive solar, active solar, wind power or water power and high spec. insulation?

Think of the resources wasted by this desperate old paradigm technology…it doesn’t produce anything!

CERN HADRON

Myself and my erstwhile colleagues worked hard for decades to convince the scientific establishment that “man-made” climate change is real…I will not have it that our research be marginalised by those frightened of its implications…who are quite willing to see campaigners like us lumped in with a bunch of greenwashing NWO fascists…simply because the effort of thinking logically is too much for them…physicists should know that nothing worthwhile is ever achieved without effort…this is where Schumacher comes in, for the effort required is both macro and micro-cosmic…

We know there is no dimension without gravity and no gravity without dimension…we call this “Time”. Gravitas is the awareness of distance!

Quote; "Energy giant EDF has ruled out delaying the closure of Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, after the government suggested its use could be extended.

Culture minister Chris Philp said on Monday that the Somerset facility’s lifetime “might continue”.

The comments came amid concerns the war in Ukraine could disrupt gas supplies to power stations across Europe.

But EDF said the defueling of Hinkley B would begin by August, as it had “confirmed” previously." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61646768?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom4=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCPolitics&at_campaign=64

Quote; “Hinkley’s already 8 years overdue. And by the time it’s finished it’ll be the most expensive object on earth.” https://www.arafel.co.uk/2016/07/hinkleypoint-did-you-hear-one-about.html

Quote; "Boris Johnson hopes his dream of “a new nuclear plant every year” will be aided and abetted by the recent publication of the government’s Energy Security Strategy. But with little interest from the investment market, and the fact that utility-scale solar and onshore wind cost less than a quarter of new nuclear, perhaps the Treasury’s concerns should be taken more seriously.

Here’s why. Hinkley Point C, the only new nuclear construction in town, where energy giant EDF is building two nuclear reactors, is overdue and over budget. Costs have ramped up from an original estimate of £18bn to £26bn, and the Somerset project is not due to open until at least June 2027, and more than likely quite a few years later.

Next in line is Sizewell C in Suffolk, which is supposed to be paid for via the “fiscally dextrous” Regulated Asset Base mechanism, a new funding model that transfers risk from developers to consumers to bring in more investors. This places great financial liability unfairly and squarely on the shoulders of UK taxpayers and electricity consumers, who will be paying for huge upfront costs, inevitable delays and further cost hikes.

And there’s more. The EDF European pressurised water reactor (EPR) design, currently being built at Hinkley C and planned for Sizewell C, may have a generic fault with its most important safety feature: the reactor pressure vessel. As a result, a Chinese EPR has now been shuttered for ten months.

This is not forgetting the horrible mess across the channel, with half of EDF’s nuclear reactor fleet offline, many due to progressive corrosion. The French nuclear regulator is warning a “large-scale plan” lasting “several years” is needed.

Nuclear’s climate-friendly unique selling point (USP) is also up for grabs. Sea-level rise will increase coastal flooding, storm surges and erosion, making current coastal nuclear infrastructure increasingly obsolete. This means even more expense for any nuclear construction, operation, waste management and decommissioning – and, according to the UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers, even relocation or abandonment.

Happily, help is on the way – 256 gigawatts (GW) of non-hydro renewables were added to the world’s power grids in 2020 (nuclear added only 0.4GW). Last year, solar and wind made up three-quarters of all new generation – and with other renewables, the total figure is 84 per cent.

Even the UK investment minister recently concluded that wind farms in the North Sea will be more valuable to the UK than the oil and gas industry. There is no one left to dispute the fact that the heavy lifting of the net zero transition will be done by renewable energy.

Nuclear isn’t just slow and expensive – it’s far too inflexible to ramp up and down with the swings of demand. When the wind fails to blow and the sun doesn’t shine, that’s when grid upgrades, interconnection (which enables power to be shared between neighbouring countries), energy efficiency management, and rapidly evolving storage technology steps in to make up the difference. Nuclear’s contribution has, can and will only ever be very marginal. The reality is, it’s already well past its sell-by date.*" https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/energy/2022/05/debate-nuclear-already-well-past-sell-by-date

*Or it’s b**locks!

2 Likes

Hi @GKH, I’m not actually denying anything you say – in fact I make a point of saying I don’t have the information to make a case one way or the other. What I am saying is that whilst our most vulnerable people are exposed to death if we don’t take immediate steps NOW the rights and wrongs of issues like global warming and the economics of extraction have to be set aside if they interfere with solving this life or death issue TODAY.

Much of the problem is solved if Russian sanctions are lifted and oil and gas pipeline imports resume. From what RobG has said about tankers – just switching from piped oil and gas to sea transported oil and LPG increases the pollution of the atmosphere massively!

But we also need to reverse rewilding policies in agriculture in the UK to encourage greater food production. And of course reverse the GM “editing” policies at the same time. Encourage home food growing and chicken and egg production in countryside domestic areas where possible.

Growing crops to pour into our fuel to satisfy some weird green policy is just madness when we could be growing for food.

Banning wood and coal burning stoves at a time when all other energy prices have gone through the roof is also insane.

Watching China add 50 coal burning power plants a year whilst we close them at a time of critical need is another crazy idea – no matter how desirable this would be later once energy prices have stabilised for the vulnerable. Again I have no idea how long it would take to put in place new coal burning power plants and establish access to reliable UK coal – China seems to have no problem!

Seeing 1600 private jets in Davos so the corporate heads can all tell the world’s poor to cut their carbon footprint is obscene. This is where I see a serious problem of PR for the global warming experts – when I say “The theories of global warming have been warped by the inclusion of the term “man-made”” – when this is expressed by the politicians and MSM it comes across as “ made by the man in the street” not” as a result of the activities of mankind”. Clearly the impact of the average man in the street on global warming is minute when compared to that of the major corporates and national policies. Had the term been “corporate and government made global warming” people would see it for what it is.

Individual responsibility needs to be against an equitable measure nationally as well as internationally otherwise what’s the point – no-one seriously expects everyone in the world to be able to drive in electric cars – its doubtful that anymore than a handful of wealthy people will be able to do this – and the impact on global warming is more or less nothing – but the resources human disasters caused by chasing rare metals is outrageous.

Planting trees isn’t always helpful as I understand it – the wrong trees in the wrong places can make things worse. And have we really bottomed out the analysis of forestry impacts on co2 and oxygen after taking into account all living creatures including the macro and nano level of activity spread over reasonable time spans.

What of other warming gases – methane, has anyone solved this massive hole in the “Co2” argument as THE problem.

Solar activity is another factor as are long term climate cycles.

All these are things I have vaguely registered over decades and no doubt are largely corporate led propaganda so I am not claiming these are anymore valid than corporate-made global warming – I don’t know, and I have no reason to trust “the science” on this as on covid. Why on earth do you believe that the ordinary man in the street could wade through this morass of information and conclude that he should take personal responsibility and should no longer eat meat or (unlike everyone else) drive a car to work!?

But as I said my concern is that some of our global climate change policies will result in unnecessary deaths in the UK this year – and the politicians and MSM and some experts seem to be mouthing Madeline Albright – 500,000 dead Iraqi children is a price worth paying –today for Iraqi children read old and vulnerable.

You’re a very bright guy GKH and you started this thread with “6 million could face blackouts” – the Times failed to take the next logical step and convert the costs of energy for the vulnerable in terms of unnecessary deaths – so I am sure you have already compiled several steps which could massively reduce the risk to the vulnerable from this energy price crisis. If this can be done without a hiatus in our global warming policies then that’s great, I thought this is not possible given the limited time available, that’s all.

I recall that in the 60’s there was a massive expenditure on conversion to natural gas for all domestic users which didn’t cost the users a great deal. The whole national conversion was done remarkably quickly – maybe we should be looking at the same sort of effort for everyone to have free access to high levels of insulation of homes and installation of volt optimisers as a minimum. I bet @RhisiartGwilym would also recommend rocket stoves! :slight_smile:

cheers

1 Like

Only if we shift to a fully-reforested, forest-permaculture form of land management (with extensive coppicing), C. Then there would be enough sticks for lots of rockets! RMSs (rocket mass-heaters) as the standard form of home heating.

And plenty of food/fuel/fibre/medicines/etc (including animal products, btw, from happily-living, kindly-treated animals). And a heavenly re-wilded landscape - at the same time as being a much more net-energy-profit agriculture, of high productivity, than the oil-driven dead-loss lunacy that we practice today. The sort of landscape where people now go for inexpensive holidays, only right on your doorstep, wherever you live… :slight_smile:

This would take quite a bit of progressive infrastructure replacement, of course, over time; can’t just be wished into existence overnight; would cost a fair bit of time and investment.

And, naturally, the population would need to decrease; but Mam Gaia has that in hand already; no need to obsess about it and start wibbling about ‘eugenics!’ and the WEFoids; it’s coming automatically anyway; it will happen. Why do you think human fertility is nose-diving right now…?

An independent Scotland could show the way, and act as pathfinder for the other nations of The Isles. The Scots’ situation is already well conducive to that sort of evolution - if they could just get their political act together…

2 Likes

gm foods
glysophate
covid jabs ?

cheers

1 Like