'If'

[Tom]

Did anybody else watch this program on Wednesday night, BBC2m, 9PM?

For those who missed it, it was a documentary/drama looking into the future, the year 2010 to be exact. It examined our current electricity infrastructure, and the systems that control it, and posed the question:

Would we have enough electricity to deal with an emergency?

The emergency they simulated was a terrorist attack on a gas compression station in Russia, on a pipeline that in 2010 will supply 2/3rds of our electricity needs. It demonstrated how our predicted future reliance on gas powered electricity stations could be a major problem.

Basically, because of the terrorist attack, the UK lost nearly all of its gas supply. This forced many power stations to close down (as they were gas powered). The National Grid then had to reroute electricity like mad, of course there wasn't enough to go around, so they simply shut down the entire SE of england! The gas supply (what was left of it) was left on for people's homes, so they could have some form of heating/cooking fuel, but everything else just shut down.

Total chaos, and quite a worrying look at current trends in the electricity industry. Many of the problems shown were excaserbated by the mothballing of inefficient stations in this country, the lack of nuclear stations being built, the closure of many coal-fired stations, and only a 7% increase in renewable energy sources.

Very very interesting, and a problem that would only affect this country. Of course, its all predictions, but it did help highlight some major issues that we should be considering right now.

 

[dysfunction]

And what would those considerations be exactly?

 

[Tom]

Well, we should be building more power stations, because we're going to be operating on VERY tight margins in future. Right now, we can cope with the demand, but many of our current power stations will be decommisioned in the near future, they're just getting too old.

Also, historically, we've been self-sufficient in terms of fuel. That won't last much longer.

 

[dysfunction]

Dont you think the UK would always be ahead of demand?

I cant see this country going the way of places like India...which is pretty much the scenario you've painted there.

 

[Tom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/3489318.stm

 

[Driwen]

And what would those considerations be exactly?

should you built nuclear power plants and/or help fund plans(and research) of renewable energy sources (windmill parks/solar panels/energy from the tide of the channel??) and other options like keeping coal plants open. Being dependent on one kind of energy and then also being dependent from one source, means you are very vunerable and that is something you do not want to be.
There doesnt even have to be a terrorist attack, but Russia simply being able to threaten with cutting the gas supply of to UK, if you do not give them something or Russia being in a state of war with Europe for some reason (as Russia isnt the most political stable land atm).

 

[Paradroid]

And what would those considerations be exactly?

Every home should have a cow, with a tube connecting its arse to a gas generator. I've been using mine for years now, without any serious problems.

I think if we invested enough of our efforts in wind, sea, solar, heat, and gravity, that would be enough for ordinary households - with improvements to existing generating technology, storage systems, and trillions in financial backing. There's wasted energy everywhere (sound, light, microwaves, radiowaves, x-rays, gravity, heat) - it's just a matter of harnessing it and being ultra-efficient with it. I'll bet if you could capture the energy from all the worlds fitness fanatics (those who pound concrete or treadmills, multigym enthusiasts, aerobics classes etc etc etc THE FEKIN ARMY FFS!!!) - that'll probably be enough energy to fuel every light bulb on the planet....the olympics may keep a hospital running for a year or two (who knows)...

I remember a recent thread mentioned the black-hole experiments which are ongoing (scary stuff), but, theoretically, this could give us all the energy we would need (until we ran out of matter - which will a be a problem in billions of years, due to the universe expanding faster and faster). Perhaps blackholes are actually efficient generators for alien civilisations, exploiting the gravitational pull of neighbouring planets.


C60 may be the answer to all our prayers - in my mind - or it may be cold fusion, dunno...

 

[Mofo8]

For me the main problem is big fat greedy bastards running privatised power companies, and all the little fat greedy bastards called shareholders. Power generation seems to me to be too important to be left in the hands of people whose only driving force is profit. They won't build new plant now, 'cause it will cost them lots of money, and won't make them any money for decades, by which time it will be too late. The development of renewable energy sources is being hampered by a similar lack of investment, and also interferance from the Ministry of Defence. Can't remember where I saw it, but they say windfarms interfere with our air defence network.

I can't help but wonder what Scotland would be like now if we'd got independence in 1979 (you know - in the referendum where dead people still on the electoral role counted as a no vote). We kept getting told that the UK as a whole subsidised our part of Northern Britain... now we find out that North Sea oil and gas has been keeping this island self sufficient in energy for decades.

 

[xane]

I think if we invested enough of our efforts in wind, sea, solar, heat, and gravity, that would be enough for ordinary households - with improvements to existing generating technology, storage systems, and trillions in financial backing.

Wave power is looking more and more like a feasible option, one I'd like to bet on and especially because we are an island and surounded by "energy". Wind power is gradually becoming unrealistic, and will never keep up with demand due to its need for space. Solar power is still dragging its feet, a solar panel takes more energy to construct than it will generate in its lifetime, the technology is getting better but we are not there yet.

Whatever happens, all renewable energy is only available when the sun shines or the wind blows. Storing energy in batteries is wasteful, not to mention environmentally disasterous, you need energy on demand and ultimately this will come from more conventional sources, and nuclear power is the best option.

We can build nuclear power stations today, right now, that are safe, reliable, economic, and can generate cheaper electricity in the long term. Alternative power needs investment, but cannot guarentee a result, and will take time to develop in any case, time we haven't got. The only way to make a serious dent in our carbon emissions lies in nuclear power.

Whilst the pence/kW rate is not good for nuclear now, that is mainly because of low prices for gas and oil, that can change any day, whereas nuclear fuel will always be cheap and can be reprocessed. The initial investment for a nuclear plant is a lot, but over the lifetime of the plant, due to the small cost of fuel, it is better.

The only reason nuclear power is opposed by environmentalists is because most of the ex-CND supporters joined into their cause when they had nothing to do once the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended, the opposition is on political grounds not scientific. Any respectable scientist who wants to protect the environment will vote for zero-emission nuclear power any day over it's carbon spewing fossil fuel alternatives, even the waste issue is less impact on the environment despite the dangers of radiation, because the volumes are so small.

 

[RandomBastard]

But then one day uranium and plutonium will run out too.

 

[Stazbumpa]

By which time we'll be living in space coz the earth is too fubar to live on anymore.

 

[xane]

We'll have mastered renewables and fusion power long before uranium runs out, my suggestion is to invest in nuclear now and then develop renewables as a replacement.

 

[Ivan]

First off, chances of a terrorist attack on such a strategically important object are slim. But hypothetically :

Scenario A:

1) Terrorists attack and capture, would say its impossible to bomb the place [im assuming the security isnt worse than on a nuclear involving object]
2) Russia closes supply of gas to the sompression station
3) "Alpha" uses neural gas, object is secured within hours
4) While the gas is cut off UK uses its stored supplies/ local plants to produce power
5) UK gets resupplied as soon as gas flow is re-established

Scenario B:

1) Terrorists bomb the plant <what are the chances but still>
2) Russia cut off gas supply to the station
3) UK uses domestic supply till Russians sort it out

But seriously, the plant has virtually zero chances of getting bombed, it is more viable to bomb a section of the pipe <which can be rebuilt within days> easier to access ... easier to sabotage. In other worlds Tom do not worry about Comrades, we will deliver

 

[DaGaffer]

But then one day uranium and plutonium will run out too.

That would take a loooooong time. By which point we would hopefully have got Fusion or possibly zero point energy working. Xane's right, nuclear's the only way to go in the short term. Relying on the Russians at all is just barking.

 

[Ivan]

Relying on the Russians at all is just barking.

Thank you for using Russian gas , but unfortunately we decided that we wont supply the resource, which your country does not have domestically available, anymore since you have decided to go nuclear :worthy:


PS: one of the few Russias decent incomes comes from natural resource export. If we did not, the prices on gas would go up sky high.

 

[DaGaffer]

First off, chances of a terrorist attack on such a strategically important object are slim. But hypothetically :

Scenario A:

1) Terrorists attack and capture, would say its impossible to bomb the place [im assuming the security isnt worse than on a nuclear involving object]
2) Russia closes supply of gas to the sompression station
3) "Alpha" uses neural gas, object is secured within hours
4) While the gas is cut off UK uses its stored supplies/ local plants to produce power
5) UK gets resupplied as soon as gas flow is re-established

Scenario B:

1) Terrorists bomb the plant <what are the chances but still>
2) Russia cut off gas supply to the station
3) UK uses domestic supply till Russians sort it out

But seriously, the plant has virtually zero chances of getting bombed, it is more viable to bomb a section of the pipe <which can be rebuilt within days> easier to access ... easier to sabotage. In other worlds Tom do not worry about Comrades, we will deliver

In case you didn't notice, some jokers managed to set off ten bombs in one go in Madrid. And you think you can protect several thousand miles of pipeline from the Chechens, Al Qeada and other random nutters? Dream on.

 

[RandomBastard]

Personally i think we should attach hoses to daocers mouths and arses and use all there hot air to power us.

 

[xane]

The "dash for gas" investments where made during the Thatcher government years, and by all accounts was a sound investment, as gas prices are unlikely to rise for a long time, there are a lot of untapped gas fields waiting as well, it is not only the Russians we need to rely on, perhaps ... the Saudi Arabians too

Nuclear power is a better investment for security purposes. In France, where nuclear power is about 80% of the total, the largest plant produces a mere 2.5%, it's loss would be largely insignificant, even more so because the French have a substantial excess, which they are willing to sell to us as well

It has been described that should Sellafield get bombed it would be like "Fourty-four Chernolbyls", but this assuming the terrorists get enough explosives on site. Within an hour of any terrorist threat emerging any plant in England would be swarming with SAS, I doubt they'd have a chance.

Another point about nuclear power is the fuel, it comes from Canada, Australia and America, who are not reknowned for their fundamentalist religious beliefs, quite the reverse I think. Also the reprocessing would take place right here in the UK.

Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in renewable energy and I've studied it for quite a while, but right now, today, the technology still lacks the ability to provide what we need, and in the climate of environmental damage (pun intended) and terrorist threats, the nuclear option is the best one to tide us over until we get wave energy (another pun intended).

 

[Ivan]

In case you didn't notice, some jokers managed to set off ten bombs in one go in Madrid. And you think you can protect several thousand miles of pipeline from the Chechens, Al Qeada and other random nutters? Dream on.

Re-read my post, Are you blind or cannot read ? I said bombing pipeline is easier but its a risk, btw what exactly would Chechens achieve by bombing a pipeline that goes to UK ? they would rather bomb Moscow citizens.


PS: regarding Madrid bombing, it wasnt jokers that bombed the train.

 

[Vae]

More research into Nuclear Fusion imo.

 

[DaGaffer]

Re-read my post, Are you blind or cannot read ? I said bombing pipeline is easier but its a risk, btw what exactly would Chechens achieve by bombing a pipeline that goes to UK ? they would rather bomb Moscow citizens.


PS: regarding Madrid bombing, it wasnt jokers that bombed the train.

Ooh let me think. You said yourself, natural gas is one of Russia's biggest currency earners. Any Chechen who bothers to grow a brain will realise, dry up Russia's earnings and you dry up their ability to wage war on the Chechens! And attacking the pipeline doesn't stop them attacking poor bastards at pop concerts, it just widens the war and gets the west involved, which is what the Chechens, like all liberation groups want, attention from do-gooders. The gas pipeline is the biggest, juiciest target in the world, and they'll attack it again and again. Russia will have to throw more troops in to protect the pipeline along its whole length, raising the costs of gas, making it a less attractive option to all those western buyers.

This isn't a dig at Russia or the Russians, its just common sense. Energy is a strategic asset; bad enough that we have to rely on the middle east for oil (it would have been cheaper for the US/UK to invest in energy independence than piss away trillions in Iraq, but of course dubya's backers have a different agenda) without relying on another unstable region (sorry but Russia is unstable) for our energy. After the oil shocks of the seventies (when at least we had a net energy surplus thanks to coal) you'd think we would have learned our lesson, next time around it could be far worse than the three day week and petrol queues.

 

[Ivan]

Most points are logical conclusions, but Chechens are not a libiral group of something or other, Al Quaeda has its new targets and both of them are opting at human casualties, because thats what hurts the most. This is dragging it off the main topic, and yet there was Not a single terrorist attack on the pipeline as far as i can recall. It is plausible but Chechens will never target the Western portion of the pipe, they cannot get to it safely [ although after twin towers and that latest bombing im thinking everything is possible ]. I agree it is unstable but a very cheap source of power. Nuclear power and investments into new power sources is the way to go though. But for now and near future Gas is an economically efficient investment.

 

[Ivan]

Any Chechen who bothers to grow a brain will realise, dry up Russia's earnings and you dry up their ability to wage war on the Chechens!

What brains ? did i see Chechen extrimists and brains mentioned in same sentence ?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

But for now and near future Gas is an economically efficient investment.

That right there is the biggest problem.

All these short term solutions, quick bang for buck as it were. Invest a few million here and i will make 5 times that back. Yay!

Then they get to the next problem, and they take the quick cop out solution again. It has to end somewhere.

 

[xane]

After the oil shocks of the seventies (when at least we had a net energy surplus thanks to coal) you'd think we would have learned our lesson, next time around it could be far worse than the three day week and petrol queues.

The 70s crisis were about economics mixed with political instability arising from OPEC, there was no real "shortage" of oil.

Interesting you mention coal, Britain still has 100+ years worth of the stuff and America has renewed its investment in "clean coal", the Bush administration changed the conditions of power generation from absolute emission controls to more economic ones, with the intention that better technology reduces emissions anyway, this has given coal power a new least of life.

Coal became expensive in this country because of the economic and political concerns, with more modern extraction methods it would be a possibility to restart its use as a viable source of energy with the addition of cleaner and more efficient power generation than the smokestacks of 30 years ago.

Of course the environmentalist lobby would choke on their organic veg over coal.

 

[DaGaffer]

I didn't say 'shortage', I said 'shock'. The circumstances are pretty similar to what might happen with Russia (in fact its worse as its effectively a single supplier rather than a cartel), only the impact would be worse because '73's effect on the power stations wasn't as direct as a gas cut off would be.

Like you said, its all about economics, at some point we'll probably have to start digging coal again, of course we British don't 'do' primary industries anymore in our shiny happy service industry culture

 

[Tom]

One of the issues regarding coal was the high cost of installing filters on existing coal power stations, estimated to be around the £300 million mark. Since a coal fired station costs around £600 million to build, and most of the stations right now are getting pretty old, nobody wants to fork out to have them converted. A filtered coal power station would cost about £800-£900 million to build. The electricity companies simply do not want to invest this amount of money.

 

[dysfunction]

This actually reminds me of the massive power cut in the states a short while ago.
They get a lot of power from Canada and that supply got cut off. Plunged half the East coast into darkness for a few days if I remember correctly.


I guess these sort of TV programs inform us that we could be in for power cuts in the future and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it....unless of course you buy yourself a generator

 

[Paradroid]

Or a cow.

 

[Athan]

< ... uranium running out ... >

That would take a loooooong time. By which point we would hopefully have got Fusion or possibly zero point energy working. Xane's right, nuclear's the only way to go in the short term. Relying on the Russians at all is just barking.

I'll go google if I remember to, but anyone got any actual estimate figures of how much Uranium we have easy enough access to (i.e. don't go counting stuff possibly on the moon or in asteroids), and how long that's likely to last given current best extraction techniques and reactor designs ?

It's just people seem to ASSUME that there's "infinite" Uranium to use, and I've never heard even a vague estimate on it.

-Ath