Bbc Coast Documentary - Peak Gas Is Here

[Its time to buy]

Sorry to start a thread like this, its polarised some posters - got me thinking after the documentary though!

I have planned how I can reduce the impact of high energy prices...

1. Drive a energy efficient small vehicle that is well maintained, check tyre pressures. Cycle/walk where possible.

2. Have a thermostat controlled heating system/radiators in the home - theres no need to heat every room in the house.

3. Insulate loft, walls, have double glazing, thick carpets [if and when I buy my own house!!!!]

4. Have thick curtains, energy efficient light bulbs, dont leave electrical goods on standby - but turn them off.

5. Have part of my share portfolio exposed to energy, to hedge against high energy prices. Check with your financial planner.

6. Wear appropriate clothing according to season - i still see young ladies wearing miniskirts down town shopping today!

7. Electric under blankets are a cheap way to keep warm.

All common sense - but just stating them here, in case some posters have over looked it.

[Guest Mr Parry]

Price is not the concern, at least in the West, as I said above the cost of oil is small part of our total GDP. The problem is not when the price increases but when the amount available decreases. These are two very different things. Peak oil is not about prices, it's about there being less available than before.

Cost is a concern to some in the west, approx 25,000 people die each year in the U.K. due to cold and cold related illness.

http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/en-gb/Campaigns/WinterDeaths/

Bizarrely, about 2 years ago reading the Bangkok Post, they did a one page spread about how poor the UK was, how appauling the housing conditions were and how a couple of bad weeks of winter would see an additional 50,000 old people die prematurely due to the cold. Sourced and referenced from UK sources.

They could not believe how terrible this was.

. . . and this in a developing world newspaper!

[Kurt Barlow]

Yeah! coffins, Oh but then Mr Barlow, looking at your avatar, one would be an expert in that.

It always baffles me that the market is supposed to provide, it only provides at a cost. If this were manufactured goods or a renewable then I would agree, other items may be substituted but with finite resources if the cost gets too high then someone goes without.

Nothing seems to have the energy bang of fossil fuels and having burnt through a vast amount so swiftly it me to think not what we will replace it with but, if we can.

Most energy sources are replaced with something more efficient but so far most of the alternatives to oil and gas seem much less efficient, to me that means less bang for the buck=increasing energy cost, limits to growth and some just doing without.

Yep - you hit the nail on the head - its the energy density in fossil fuels that make them so unique. Fossil fuels are basically concentrated ancient sunlight - we currently burn several centuries worth each day.

The point is there is nothing on the horizon that will replace FF like for like. We need to start investing now to help ensure as smooth a transition as possible to avoid major social disruption. In one of my earlier posts I used an analogy related to squirrels storing acorns in times of plenty - which kind of sums things up really.

THe real answer is a mix of efficiency, nuclear, realistic renewables, changes in lifestyle.

Unless of course you subscribe to the fusion answer, solar panel factories supplied with free silicon and power, anti matter warp drives, conspiracy theories, abiotic oil/gas and other pipe dreams trolled endlessly here

[Kurt Barlow]

Bizarrely, about 2 years ago reading the Bangkok Post, they did a one page spread about how poor the UK was, how appauling the housing conditions were and how a couple of bad weeks of winter would see an additional 50,000 old people die prematurely due to the cold. Sourced and referenced from UK sources.

They could not believe how terrible this was.

. . . and this in a developing world newspaper!

We are the odd one out in western europe. Its because our housing stock is so crap. As Wlad said - we are building houses now to a standard the scandinavians were using in the 1970's

[Guest Mr Parry]

We are the odd one out in western europe. Its because our housing stock is so crap. As Wlad said - we are building houses now to a standard the scandinavians were using in the 1970's

I regularly 'witness' the crime of 'new build construction' and yes it is criminal.

But Kurt, 55% of our national 'wealth' is made up of this stock!

Edited January 2, 2008 by Mr Parry

[Wlad]

We are the odd one out in western europe. Its because our housing stock is so crap. As Wlad said - we are building houses now to a standard the scandinavians were using in the 1970's

I am in a new build (renting). It gets really quite chilly without a good deal of heating. Criminal.

[Wlad]

We are the odd one out in western europe. Its because our housing stock is so crap. As Wlad said - we are building houses now to a standard the scandinavians were using in the 1970's

And the scandanavians have moved on.

A friend was at a conference held in Finland in the middle of winter, snow on the ground, etc. He was in a bedroom in his hotel and was wearing jeans and a T shirt and was mostly ok but he decided to warm up his sockless feet on the nice warm radiator. He discovered it was off. His body heat, plus the insulation of the building, was sufficient to maintain a good temperature. Note he was just a tiny tad cold in a T shirt, and no socks.

[Kurt Barlow]

I am in a new build (renting). It gets really quite chilly without a good deal of heating. Criminal.

There is a fair chance that the cowboys (pretty good description for 80% of Britains house builders) who built it didnt even comply with the Building Reg standard let alone exceed it.

Anyway who enforces - most new builds opt out of LA building control and use NHBC.

NHBC certificate - not worth the paper its written on.

Several years back a friend of mine was doing a Masters in Accoustics and for his dissertation looked at accoustic standards in newly built flats - 82% failed to even meet the standard.

POP

[corevalue]

The idea that wind is is totally unpredicatable is misleading and false. Any given wind farm can predict its output in 1 hours time with a standard deviation no greater than 0.03. So if it supplies 100mw then this might be 97 at worst or 103 at best. Within 5 hours SD is no greater than 0.1. This completely destroys the myth that you need equivalent amounts of spinning reserve in place to suddenly replace a drop in wind power. In any case the spinning resereve is there to deal with large generators going off line suddenly (Nucs / big coal plants).

The fact is that weather forecasts upto 7 days are reasonably accurate allowing generators to supply plan and demand estimate. The UK power network could easily adapt to get 15-20% of its power from wind. Beyond that other options include demand management or pumped storage which aside from mountain top types like Dnorwic could also include coastal sites that involve the daming of bays with high continous cliff lines around them.

I've only read the abstract of the study, but part of the problem IIRC is (1) a great deal of efficiency is lost ramping up/down coal and nuke plants and running them at low capacity, and (2) weather like we have had in the last few days, prolonged high pressure, exhausts the available means of storage, e.g. pumped hydro. It doesn't imply that wind can't replace 17% of total kW-hours, but it says that we can't retire an equal capacity of conventional plant, or let it cool down. Some of it has to be kept spinning in reserve (large alternators ALWAYS have to be spun to prevent shaft distortion), and thus the energy savings are not quite as good as at first sight.

Another way: we will make 17% of our electricity from wind, and 83% from conventional plant at slightly less efficiency than before.

It is unfortunate that the thread is about natural gas running out, as this is the only quickly despatchable electrical generation we have in any quantity. There is hope however, that IF we can import NG in quantity, we can store that in depleted North Sea fields to use to spin up NG generators quickly. That will work, but see my post about ME NG shortages.

[Kurt Barlow]

I've only read the abstract of the study, but part of the problem IIRC is (1) a great deal of efficiency is lost ramping up/down coal and nuke plants and running them at low capacity, and (2) weather like we have had in the last few days, prolonged high pressure, exhausts the available means of storage, e.g. pumped hydro. It doesn't imply that wind can't replace 17% of total kW-hours, but it says that we can't retire an equal capacity of conventional plant, or let it cool down. Some of it has to be kept spinning in reserve (large alternators ALWAYS have to be spun to prevent shaft distortion), and thus the energy savings are not quite as good as at first sight.

Another way: we will make 17% of our electricity from wind, and 83% from conventional plant at slightly less efficiency than before.

It is unfortunate that the thread is about natural gas running out, as this is the only quickly despatchable electrical generation we have in any quantity. There is hope however, that IF we can import NG in quantity, we can store that in depleted North Sea fields to use to spin up NG generators quickly. That will work, but see my post about ME NG shortages.

The national grid get at least 3-5 days notice before a high pressure system forms over the uk. This time of year most power plants are up and running unless shut down for unforseen maintenance so are in some level of operation - they are certainly not cold. As I said before Spinning reserve is needed to deal with a large plant going offline suddenly. This doesnt happen with wind because several hundred turbines make up the supply equivalent of one large power plant. At any one time a few may be offline - but not all 700!

[Guest Mr Parry]

There is a fair chance that the cowboys (pretty good description for 80% of Britains house builders) who built it didnt even comply with the Building Reg standard let alone exceed it.

Anyway who enforces - most new builds opt out of LA building control and use NHBC.

NHBC certificate - not worth the paper its written on.

Several years back a friend of mine was doing a Masters in Accoustics and for his dissertation looked at accoustic standards in newly built flats - 82% failed to even meet the standard.

POP

Correct Kurt. See the NHBC in ACTION regularly. They take absolutely NO NOTICE of what is being built, only some poor old bloke in an 18" deep trench, "get that man out of that trench, didn't you know 0.3 men died in trenches less than 12" deep last year".

Frankly the NHBC is a ridiculous organisation.

[corevalue]

The national grid get at least 3-5 days notice before a high pressure system forms over the uk. This time of year most power plants are up and running unless shut down for unforseen maintenance so are in some level of operation - they are certainly not cold. As I said before Spinning reserve is needed to deal with a large plant going offline suddenly. This doesnt happen with wind because several hundred turbines make up the supply equivalent of one large power plant. At any one time a few may be offline - but not all 700!

It's not a question of sudden changes in demand, it's the effect of runnning your remaining conventional plant at a less efficient operating point: we both agree you can't turn it off if you want it back the next day. At any time, a number will be off-line for maintainance, I understand nukes are especially problematical there, but the name of the game is to keep your FF plants running as close to maxuimum efficiency as possible.

As I see it, 20 GW of wind turbines (rated) produce 8GW of electricity average (40% capacity factor), but displace about 5 GW (or 9-10% of UK usage) of fossil fuel electrical production because of increased inefficiency in the FF plant, with a saving of about 12 GW of primary fuel energy (assume 40% or so efficiency from the coal plant). I assume it is strategy to reduce the load on coal plants first, given global warming concerns etc.

Don't forget that wind turbines, because of their cubic power law (power proportional to windspeed cubed) and their minimun operational speed, produce the majority of their power at the full nameplate rating, otherwise little or nothing. Agreed, you can forecast the variations, but it means that you must throttle down the coal plant by 20 GW in a few hours in many cases, which results in running the coal plants at less efficient operating points. 20GW from 50GW is a big bite, don't you agree?

My real argument is that we shouldn't have p*ssed the North Sea gas away for short term gain, because it was the ideal fuel to balance wind turbines in the UK.

[Kurt Barlow]

Correct Kurt. See the NHBC in ACTION regularly. They take absolutely NO NOTICE of what is being built, only some poor old bloke in an 18" deep trench, "get that man out of that trench, didn't you know 0.3 men died in trenches less than 12" deep last year".

Frankly the NHBC is a ridiculous organisation.

Its fcukin ridiculous - NHBC have no H&S remitt and evidently from what you say have no idea what they are talking about in this field. In contrast the HSE - construction division (who by and large do know what they are talking about) have been decimated.

[Kurt Barlow]

It's not a question of sudden changes in demand, it's the effect of runnning your remaining conventional plant at a less efficient operating point: we both agree you can't turn it off if you want it back the next day. At any time, a number will be off-line for maintainance, I understand nukes are especially problematical there, but the name of the game is to keep your FF plants running as close to maxuimum efficiency as possible.

As I see it, 20 GW of wind turbines (rated) produce 8GW of electricity average (40% capacity factor), but displace about 5 GW (or 9-10% of UK usage) of fossil fuel electrical production because of increased inefficiency in the FF plant, with a saving of about 12 GW of primary fuel energy (assume 40% or so efficiency from the coal plant). I assume it is strategy to reduce the load on coal plants first, given global warming concerns etc.

Don't forget that wind turbines, because of their cubic power law (power proportional to windspeed cubed) and their minimun operational speed, produce the majority of their power at the full nameplate rating, otherwise little or nothing. Agreed, you can forecast the variations, but it means that you must throttle down the coal plant by 20 GW in a few hours in many cases, which results in running the coal plants at less efficient operating points. 20GW from 50GW is a big bite, don't you agree?

My real argument is that we shouldn't have p*ssed the North Sea gas away for short term gain, because it was the ideal fuel to balance wind turbines in the UK.

I agree on the last point whole heartedly.

The demand for power tends to track wind - ie windy conditions in the UK tend to result in highest electricity consumption (given the leaky nature of much of the UK housing stock). It is quite reasonable to assume therefore that in such conditions wind contributions enable large stations to run silghtly off full throttle thereby increasing efficiency. If the truth is known I suspect circumstances balance out.

As for the the range over which WT operate this has improved considerably. Larger taller turbines capture more continous wind higher up. Pitch control enables the turbine to operate over a wider range of wind speeds.

Anecdotally I used to drive past the turbine at Swaffham (NOrfolk) every day - Only on a few occasions did I see it not turning. It apparently paid for itself in 6 years.

[corevalue]

I agree on the last point whole heartedly.

The demand for power tends to track wind - ie windy conditions in the UK tend to result in highest electricity consumption (given the leaky nature of much of the UK housing stock). It is quite reasonable to assume therefore that in such conditions wind contributions enable large stations to run silghtly off full throttle thereby increasing efficiency. If the truth is known I suspect circumstances balance out.

As for the the range over which WT operate this has improved considerably. Larger taller turbines capture more continous wind higher up. Pitch control enables the turbine to operate over a wider range of wind speeds.

Anecdotally I used to drive past the turbine at Swaffham (NOrfolk) every day - Only on a few occasions did I see it not turning. It apparently paid for itself in 6 years.

There's more wind in the winter too, which also happens to be a prime demand season for 'leccy.

[Guest Mr Parry]

I agree on the last point whole heartedly.

The demand for power tends to track wind - ie windy conditions in the UK tend to result in highest electricity consumption (given the leaky nature of much of the UK housing stock). It is quite reasonable to assume therefore that in such conditions wind contributions enable large stations to run silghtly off full throttle thereby increasing efficiency. If the truth is known I suspect circumstances balance out.

As for the the range over which WT operate this has improved considerably. Larger taller turbines capture more continous wind higher up. Pitch control enables the turbine to operate over a wider range of wind speeds.

Anecdotally I used to drive past the turbine at Swaffham (NOrfolk) every day - Only on a few occasions did I see it not turning. It apparently paid for itself in 6 years.

Kurt, what proportion of the UK's electricity demand could wind power provide? NuLab were talking about all homes by 2020. Is this bu11sh1t?

[corevalue]

Kurt, what proportion of the UK's electricity demand could wind power provide? NuLab were talking about all homes by 2020. Is this bu11sh1t?

'tis billshut. The current program to produce 17% by 2020 is ambitious, to say the least. It's 11 giant turbines a day. In the North Sea, where 'tis not unknown for the gales to last weeks. And where, pray tell, will the money come from, PFI*? And who has the manufacturing plant capable of churning out that amount of stuff these days?

I reckon it will be like the Channel tunnel. You know how that went, and it's a shame, because this is really important.

* on reflection, I know perfectly well where the money will come from. Me, and you. The point is, the current generators don't want to spend their own.

Edited January 3, 2008 by corevalue

[Kurt Barlow]

Kurt, what proportion of the UK's electricity demand could wind power provide? NuLab were talking about all homes by 2020. Is this bu11sh1t?

Hi Mr P

Theoretically it could meet UK demand 3 times over - if we wanted to cover the whole UK in turbines! 20% or approx 75 TWH is quite feasible over the next 20-25 years. The upsizing of turbines is making that easier. In 1990 a turbine was 200-300kw. NOw they are 2-3mw with 6mw quite possible.

The target set by the Govt is ******** because we lack the capacity to develop the resource that quickly. If you take into account planning consultation, the world wide shortage of wind turbines (yes - if you want one join a waiting list). That said achieving 50% of what they want is better than nothing given that nothing else is planned. Really they need to get building the next generation of nucs now. If they dont they will have to provide zimmer frames for the engineers who built the last lot.

KB

[Guest Mr Parry]

Hi Mr P

Theoretically it could meet UK demand 3 times over - if we wanted to cover the whole UK in turbines! 20% or approx 75 TWH is quite feasible over the next 20-25 years. The upsizing of turbines is making that easier. In 1990 a turbine was 200-300kw. NOw they are 2-3mw with 6mw quite possible.

The target set by the Govt is ******** because we lack the capacity to develop the resource that quickly. If you take into account planning consultation, the world wide shortage of wind turbines (yes - if you want one join a waiting list). That said achieving 50% of what they want is better than nothing given that nothing else is planned. Really they need to get building the next generation of nucs now. If they dont they will have to provide zimmer frames for the engineers who built the last lot.

KB

Thanks to Mr. Corevalue and Hi Kurt,

Yes, one could but wonder at such statements by the NuLab. I read somewhere that the UK could no longer build it's own Nucs, the last one being completed in '95 was it - all the engineers now retired or permanently retired (if you know what I mean).

Because of this Arriva (French as you well know) offerred to build a whole load of BIG ONES in return fo the CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE UK NATIONAL GRID.

I can see NuLab MP's running round B&Q buying up all those silly windmill toy things.

[Kurt Barlow]

Thanks to Mr. Corevalue and Hi Kurt,

Yes, one could but wonder at such statements by the NuLab. I read somewhere that the UK could no longer build it's own Nucs, the last one being completed in '95 was it - all the engineers now retired or permanently retired (if you know what I mean).

Because of this Arriva (French as you well know) offerred to build a whole load of BIG ONES in return fo the CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE UK NATIONAL GRID.

I can see NuLab MP's running round B&Q buying up all those silly windmill toy things.

French will build our nucs, Danes & Germans our wind turbines / gas turbines. We will shine their shoes.......

BTW those B & Q wind turbines are utterly useless - better off leaving the minerals in the ground.

[eightiesgirly]

Flippin' eck, the way this goverment is shaping up it couldn't provide a rubber in a wh8rehouse. I think I'll invest in woodburner, some coppice and a hurricane lamp.

We're all going to end up freezing, in the dark and doing the washing with a dolly tub!

[Guest Mr Parry]

French will build our nucs, Danes & Germans our wind turbines / gas turbines. We will shine their shoes.......

BTW those B & Q wind turbines are utterly useless - better off leaving the minerals in the ground.

Do we still make shoe polish?

B&Q; One had guessed as much looking at the specs!

[Kurt Barlow]

Flippin' eck, the way this goverment is shaping up it couldn't provide a rubber in a wh8rehouse. I think I'll invest in woodburner, some coppice and a hurricane lamp.

We're all going to end up freezing, in the dark and doing the washing with a dolly tub!

Spot on again Eightiesgirly!

I know a couple of engineers in the power sector who are so confident in the power supply in this country over the next 20 years they have put serious dosh into building back up systems at home - wood burning stoves, solar thermal, PV, and small scale wind.

I suppose from the Govts POV they wont be in power so who cares!

[eightiesgirly]

Spot on again Eightiesgirly!

I know a couple of engineers in the power sector who are so confident in the power supply in this country over the next 20 years they have put serious dosh into building back up systems at home - wood burning stoves, solar thermal, PV, and small scale wind.

I suppose from the Govts POV they wont be in power so who cares!

They've got a lot of confidence then?

A load of debt and a high mortgage is not good at the best of times, with ever increasing power expenses, the payment pot will get smaller. I saw this in the last recession when interest rates rose, those who previously bought food at M&S started shopping at Netto. The question is where do you fall to from Netto?

We have been systematically robbed, and the masses quieted with ever rising home equity, a lot of which has been spent. Staying warm and keeping the lights on may become an issue for more than is imagined.

[alexw]

Do we still make shoe polish?

Yes. And in that company we have one manager who makes 300K GBP, 3 consultants who make 150K GBP (they lobby and advise the government on shoe polish issues). Polish workers who sell the polish (12K GBP). And the actual manufacturing is outsourced to china for 30p per day per worker.

Edited January 3, 2008 by alexw