The greying corpse of a fag end parliament is dotted with political announcements which should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Why, after all, should anyone believe that a government is going to deliver in weeks that which it has failed to deliver over half a decade? One such political announcement arrived yesterday, in the shape of Rishi Sunak’s announcement of the development of new gas power stations. According to Sunak:
“It is the insurance policy Britain needs to protect our energy security, while we deliver our net zero transition.”
Which sounds a lot like “we had to carbonise the economy in order to decarbonise the economy.” In any case, since the most optimistic timescale for delivering a new gas power station in the UK is three years, the announcement is no more than a politician mouthing empty words to stay in the media spotlight. If the UK is to build new gas (or any other) generating capacity, it will fall to the incoming Labour government to make the decisions.
Nevertheless, opponents – who also mouth words to capture attention – were quick to condemn Sunak’s announcement. The BBC, for example, quotes some people called “the Green Alliance” (no, me neither) who say that the announcement “flies in the face” of the government’s net zero commitments… which, of course, it does. Meanwhile, the opposition – who regularly mistake “capacity” for “output” – came up with the non-solution of covering every hill in the UK with wind turbines as an alternative… conveniently forgetting that every windfarm requires equivalent back-up or storage capacity, and that for the moment gas is the only game in town.
It would be simple enough to decarbonise the UK’s electricity. Indeed, following just four steps, it can even be done at a profit… and far sooner than the Tories’ 2035 or Labour’s 2030 target:
Pass legislation to nationalise (without compensation) the remaining fossil fuel power stations Disconnect these from the grid Send in the bulldozers Sell the recovered land off to property developers.
And voila! In no more than two years, the UK could have a decarbonised electricity system. Although, more observant readers will also notice that having demolished 35,346 MW (30,314MW of which is gas) of the UK’s total 103,148 MW of generating capacity, the system could only meet two-thirds of current demand… and then only on a good day when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. On a bad day, the system would likely struggle to meet a fifth of current demand. And this would get worse over time, because Britain’s ageing fleet of nuclear power stations is being decommissioned much faster than it can be replaced. The eye-wateringly expensive Hinkley Point C, for example, was proposed in 2010, and is still unbuilt… with few observers expecting it to be complete by the end of the decade.
A less obvious problem with going carbon free is that by taking out the fossil fuel power stations, and with most of the nukes closing, we would be stripping the grid of essential inertia – all of those giant spinning steel turbines – without which grid frequency cannot be maintained, causing most electrical devices plugged into it to fry… possibly including the Grid’s own control systems. And in the event that the lights were to go out, there is a serious risk that it will be impossible to turn them back on again.
In theory, some combination of nuclear baseload, biofuel generation, carbon capture and storage, and a massive expansion of pumped hydro systems similar to Dinorwig in North Wales, would – for trillions of pounds – allow windfarms to become the largest part of UK electricity generation without crashing the Grid and leaving Britain without energy. In practice though – in a country with a long track record of civil engineering failures – there is simply no way that the UK could do this within the time and cost constraints available.
This is why Sunak’s announcement of new gas power station construction was couched in the language of “energy security.” Because, despite the line taken by establishment media, energy policy in the twenty-first century has always involved a difficult trade-off between:
Security Environment, and Cost.
As Dieter Helm noted in his energy policy review in 2017:
“It is not particularly difficult to set out what an efficient energy system might look like which meets the twin objectives of the climate change targets and security of supply. There would, however, remain a binding constraint: the willingness and ability to pay for it. There have to be sufficient resources available, and there has in a democracy to be a majority who are both willing to pay and willing to force the population as a whole to pay. This constraint featured prominently in the last three general elections, and it has not gone away.”
There are, no doubt, some “back to nature” types within the “green” movement who welcome the destruction of industrial civilisation which an instant shutdown of fossil fuelled electricity generation would involve. The majority of environmental campaigners, however, have bought-into the immoral myth not only that electricity can be decarbonised using wind turbines, but that the entire economy – including mining, manufacturing, and transport – could be powered in this way by as early as 2030 without crashing the economy and propelling us to dystopia.
At least the “de-growth” movement is honest in explaining that the switch to a low-carbon economy is also a switch to a much less complex and technical (i.e., poorer) economy. Although even within this movement are a high number of activists who imagine that there will still be things like the internet, smartphones, and hi-tech medicine in the energy-depleted aftermath.
Sunak embracing gas along with Starmer’s recent ditching of the – woefully inadequate – £28bn of green investment, is evidence of a political class finally waking up to the impossibility of balancing cost, energy security, and environmental concerns. Not least because the disappearance of cheap Russian oil and gas following the invasion of Ukraine has decimated the European wind turbine industry, and rendered the development of windfarms unprofitable at any price the economy can withstand.
Nuclear would have been a better option than windfarms from the very beginning – which is why France has a head and shoulders lead over Germany and the UK when it comes to generating low-carbon electricity:
Given the UK’s inability to deliver civil engineering projects though, even the small modular reactor (SMR) fantasy is likely unachievable. And so, increasing the number of gas power stations is the only means of keeping the lights on… and even this comes with a big potential drawback.
One of the few far-sighted decisions during the Blair years was the construction of the liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal in Milford Haven. Without this, Sunak’s proposed gas power stations would be a non-starter. As a result of the new trade deal with Texas, the UK will be able to import LNG for as long as the USA has a surplus – which some hope could be the remainder of the century, while more sober analysts argue might only be until the end of the decade. In any case, the cost of compressing and shipping LNG is so high compared to piped natural gas, that it is doubtful that even with new gas power stations, the wider UK economy could avoid a depression due to the excessive price of electricity that transatlantic LNG entails.
Perhaps there is an unconscious belief among the political class that sooner or later the European economies will get back to the good old days when cheap Russian gas allowed us to power our economies on the cheap; supporting the German manufacturing and UK currency speculation which allows the wider European economy to grow. Given the speed at which China is building gas pipelines to Russia, and India is uprating its oil refining capacity, however, there is no good reason to believe that Russia, or even the BRICS states more generally, will ever again trade with Europe on favourable terms. And so, one way or another, high energy costs are here to stay…
Which is where the balancing act comes in. For several decades, the UK electorate has embraced environmental policies which were falsely sold as being cost-free. In the high-energy cost years following lockdown and tearing up relations with Russia though, a growing electoral majority has emerged against any further, inevitably expensive, decarbonizing measures. And while the political class might be able to ignore this to some extent, what they cannot ignore is the detrimental impact of high energy prices on the wider economy. Which is why both wings of the uniparty are currently flip-flopping between cost, security, and environment.
Ultimately, a balancing act succeeds only where there is a natural equilibrium… in this case, a stable point at which the economy has sufficient energy at an affordable cost from sources which do not cause further environmental destruction. Four decades ago, when the political class began to be exercised by climate change, it seemed like technology would somehow overcome the inherent problems with diffuse energy sources like wind and solar, so long as the requisite laws were enacted. Forty years later, we are beginning to wake up to just how wrong they were. The balance cannot be struck. The choice is to either secure a high energy-density alternative to fossil fuels (which doesn’t currently exist) or face a relatively rapid simplification of our economy – which will be something like the Great Depression of the 1930s… only much worse and with no way back.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
"Nuclear would have been a better option than windfarms from the very beginning – which is why France has a head and shoulders lead over Germany and the UK when it comes to generating low-carbon electricity..."
Hmmm...France’s has 56 reactors, half of which are about 40 years old...or older. The words " creaking" and " leaking" come to mind. A year or two ago about half them were shut down for months for essential inspections & repairs...and when it comes to decommissioning which won't be that far down the line for the crumbling oldies, if done properly it has the capacity to swallow a lot of money for no return whatsoever. I remember reading a report years ago which projected that nuclear decommissioning costs would be so serious that they had the capacity to impoverish France...
-That of course would suggest it won't be done properly at all.
In theory, some combination of nuclear baseload, biofuel generation, carbon capture and storage, and a massive expansion of pumped hydro systems similar to Dinorwig in North Wales, would – for trillions of pounds – allow windfarms to become the largest part of UK electricity generation without crashing the Grid and leaving Britain without energy. In practice though – in a country with a long track record of civil engineering failures – there is simply no way that the UK could do this within the time and cost constraints available.
As it happens, I worked on Dinorwig project in N Wales fwiw, many moons ago, for a month or so. Although I was inspired, it ain't the answer to our problems, trust me : ). The whole system needs to change, I guess, perhaps a socialist war economy needs to be created, or similar. TINA. Unlikely outcome .. : /
Curious that the Tories posited that as the only alternative to TINA. I remember reports about Dinorwic on Blue Peter.The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
Starting in 1974: It was Labour government with Wilson fwiw. Hence my employment for that brief period. Nuthing to do with Tories' TINA. The TINA I suggested was to do with what it needs to be done now.
I meant that it reminded me of the early 80s when the Tories claimed that the only alternative to Tina was a Stalinist command economy. Tim Watkins seems to be suggesting something similar for different reasons.
When did Dinorwic change its spelling?The last working-class hero in England.
Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ? ? ? - 4 November 2021
'Water is stored at 636 metres (2,087 ft) above sea level in Marchlyn Mawr reservoir. When power needs to be generated, water from the reservoir is sent down through the turbines into Llyn Peris, which is at approximately 100 metres (330 ft). Water is pumped back from Llyn Peris to Marchlyn Mawr during off-peak times. Although it uses more energy to pump the water up than is generated on the way down, pumping is generally done when electricity is cheaper and generation when it is more expensive. '
(Facepalm) - so for all that colossal effort and expense, in the final analysis it doesn't actually generate any electricity at all - just shuffling the megawatts around so there's spare capacity for when people all boil their kettles at the same time during ad breaks. This f*ing culture... Difficult to see how it could be any help at all during a period of energy decline.
'There are, no doubt, some “back to nature” types within the “green” movement who welcome the destruction of industrial civilisation which an instant shutdown of fossil fuelled electricity generation would involve.'
Bit of a caricature here, but the way capitalism has locked us into growth-at-all-costs pretty much guarantees that this will be the eventual outcome. No gradual transition, no long-term phasing out and powering down to live within ecological limits and the capabilities of human (and possibly animal) labour. No, there's a gun pointing at everyone's head and a madman shouting 'work harder'!, 'just one more push!', 'we can do it if we all pull together!', and the whole economy will judder along frenetically until one day it... just doesn't any more.
I would very much welcome the demise of industrial civilisation, for the good of people as well as the living world, but can't really begin to imagine what kind of horrors this would cause were it to happen overnight. Yet I'm not seeing any serious attempts to steer away from this disastrous course, at least not anywhere close to being implemented. This must be why people describe industrial civilisation as a suicide pact... except that implies some kind of choice in the matter.
I hope you've all got your bug-out bags ready! Some limited capacity for TLN refugees (preferably skilled) on the highland farm in Scotland where I'm now working, though I can't promise a 'back to nature' idyll from the start... DM me before t'interwebs go down
.. pumping is generally done when electricity is cheaper and generation when it is more expensive.
Essentially, it is a giant battery that is costly to charge. Saves starting and re-starting of gas turbines and such, which is probably more costly than not having it.
Despite dire prognostications, I am still in favour of changing the trajectory of our (and other western) governments through political means (?) rather than dying in the labour camp barracks when the whole shebang comes to halt .. due to greed of 0.1% and incompetence of their servants (politicians etc.).
Still a worthwhile effort, though the kind of changes needed now are several orders of magnitude greater than the ossified political class appears capable of offering. It would have to be revolutionary, and then the revolution would be blamed for the collapse (and it might well be the trigger). Doesn't mean it shouldn't still happen, or that fighting to keep some sanity in the political culture isn't valuable too, if only to avert the threat of fascism. Currently I prefer to put my energies elsewhere.
As it happens, I care what happens with the 8 billion, so to speak, now. I've done my 'back to the nature' thing in the 70's. Findhorn etc and more. Fizzled out eventually, when I realised we have more complex issues to deal with. I can't imagine you not being aware that we just might have 'resources' that gov't can use. Not sure why you would think you will not be drawn into the labour camps. Just saying. Not that I am saying that your course of action is not useful. I salute your efforts and experience that you can disseminate thereof. Without any doubt. Perhaps just a word of caution, if I may.
Not quite sure of your point re: the 8bn. Hopefully you don't mean that not engaging with party politics means one doesn't care about the mass of humanity?
Interesting you were at Findhorn. Never visited myself but have heard that it has some weird dynamics these days between the old guard who set it up and the newer members who had to pay hundreds of thousands (?) to move in. And there's apparently a hierarchy of decision-making where the old guard have veto power over certain things even when a majority is in favour of a particular policy.
For sure there are different approaches you can take to a 'back to the land/nature' movement. It can be all escapism and political quietism, or it can challenge established land ownership & rights and help regenerate a viable rural economy. The highlands (and rural areas more generally) definitely need to be repopulated - sensitively and with a focus on actual landwork, not just city folks working from home. Though a question remains on who should be the ones doing this, and it would be a problem if it was just idealistic people from southern england such as myself.
Wouldn't know about labour camps, though I would think it might be easier to escape them in the countryside than in the cities. Could be wrong of course. We're trying to make this work as a small business, not an eco commune (at least not for now!) so we're subject to many of the same pressures of rising prices and stagnant wages. We've proved that we can grow veg in less-than-ideal conditions, but external economic volatility could still swipe it all away, as it's doing to many small-scale growers lately.
Thinking more often that there will have to be a concerted effort to stage land occupations with a focus on subsistence and community autonomy, because the money's just not there otherwise to make it work. It appears that this is something that will have to happen in spite of the wishes of the major political parties. They will just have to follow (more likely clamp down or appropriate) as best they can.
I hope it is a simple one to explain. My point is that we have 8 bn to take care of .. surely. Not just a segment of western dissidents. Looking at the big picture now. How does one do it? Unified effort seems probably the answer. Hence BRICS etc. Western governments have overstayed their welcome with their stale meaningless ideas of capitalism they project (0.001% financialisation and rentier economy and the rest). You *cannot* do this this transition without industry we currently possess without ensuring a mass killing off of the populace. This industry needs to change, of course, to cater for climate change. There is no way that I can see we can change this trajectory, from my limited dip into the 'transition' ('transition' is the new word being used for jobbies on the green market at the mo). There is no money in it. Quite simple really. It's dying on its feet as we speak.
Interesting you were at Findhorn.
I wasn't there. I referred to the ideas that eventually crystalised in that 'movement'. Findhorn was after all blessed with the Gulf stream 'anomaly' in that geographical area. No, I was involved in more basic ideas of how one can 'drop out' and make a viable living, living off the land. It didn't work out after 10 odd years of trying in my limited ways. I'll spare you the details.
For sure there are different approaches you can take to a 'back to the land/nature' movement. It can be all escapism and political quietism, or it can challenge established land ownership & rights and help regenerate a viable rural economy. The highlands (and rural areas more generally) definitely need to be repopulated - sensitively and with a focus on actual landwork, not just city folks working from home. Though a question remains on who should be the ones doing this, and it would be a problem if it was just idealistic people from southern england such as myself.
Lots I can agree with there. But, surely, you do realise that this is a partial answer to the current dilemma. It is needed, of course, to have an agricultural policy that parallels the industrial policy (as mentioned above). If not the 8 bn, let's accept 60 mil of us here. Same thing imo.
Wouldn't know about labour camps, though I would think it might be easier to escape them in the countryside than in the cities. Could be wrong of course.
Perhaps I went for the throat on this one, projecting 1984 and an Orwellian scenario, but I can see it happening during the collapse. And collapse it will unless we make some serious industrial and agricultural changes.
We've proved that we can grow veg in less-than-ideal conditions, but external economic volatility could still swipe it all away, as it's doing to many small-scale growers lately.
Admirable. Power to your elbow.
Thinking more often that there will have to be a concerted effort to stage land occupations with a focus on subsistence and community autonomy, because the money's just not there otherwise to make it work.
You are currently doing your thing in an environment that dictates the outcomes for your efforts. Quite different if the environment is different i.e. a different political system.
Whatever you do I wish you well. Idealism hasn't harmed anyone : ). Just swat the old codgers like me aside and get on with it hehe .
'My point is that we have 8 bn to take care of .. surely. Not just a segment of western dissidents'
Point taken. A problem with trying to do this within the confines of market fundamentalism is that local, organic(ish) veg has to be priced at the point where the people who arguably need it most can't afford it, and it turns into a luxury purchase for the upper classes and/or tourists. It also means that only those privileged with savings, inheritance or other sources of high income can afford to throw themselves into it, when really the deepening collapse demands that as many people as possible begin to produce rather than consume, and directly for their own needs or small-scale trade, not as another entrepreneurial niche in the global market, doomed to failure.
More generally the problems facing civilisation appear intractable, and trying to solve them a recipe for madness - or tyranny. The momentum for this collapse has been been building arguably for 10,000 years, not just since Thatcher & Reagan, and trying to effect a major change in direction at this stage is impossible IMHO. All we can do is try to navigate the paroxysms with as much dignity and humanity as possible, something that everyone can take responsibility for on the level of day-to-day relationships. If there's enough strength to spread this out to workplace organising, local political activism and more revolutionary activity when the chips are down, so much the better. I'm just not seeing how national or international politics & economics are amenable to change at this point. BRICS is a positive development in many ways, but if it just results in new hegemons and empires, then the outcome will be the same for the climate, the biosphere, indigenous people, and finally the 8bn when resource depletion catches up with them too.
Anyway, maybe I'm being too pessimistic and there are pleasant surprises to be had along the way. I probably wouldn't spend so much time on this forum if I didn't believe that it was worthwhile keeping an eye on the bigger picture and trying to affect it in some way. Frustrating how all the positive energy gets dissipated and turned to dead ends, or co-opted in further service to the establishment. So much wasted potential, so many brighter worlds we could be living in than the one we find ourselves in today...
The momentum for this collapse has been been building arguably for 10,000 years, not just since Thatcher & Reagan
Isn't that around the time when we observe the 'hockey stick' i.e. at the start of the agriculture in Mesopotamia/Turkey. Humans were OK when they were hunter-gatherers : ).
But seriously, the way I see it, we are where we are. The whole 8 billion. And the 'golden billion' is currently stirring up trouble which needs to be dealt with. Which leads me into:
BRICS is a positive development in many ways, but if it just results in new hegemons and empires ..
Not according to Pepe Escobar (which is also my take) regarding the outcome. Hegemons and empires work on the principle of zero-sum as opposed to win-win game outcomes which BRICS espouses. It's about sovereignty and live and let live. It's up to each nation to sort out it's own wealth distribution, politics and democracy. When it comes to odious entities like Israel and such, is it likely that BRICS will put up with with oppression of Palestinians? I don't think so. There would likely be some interference by BRICS members i.e. non-cooperation by consensus and sink it by boycotting it in terms of trade etc. For example, take out the current hegemon out the equation and Israel would sink. QED. Climate change? There could be a consensus and a rational response and help by member states .. think migrations.
Zooming back to your tribulations and hopes, looking from my perch you will be fine. Keep trucking : )
Yes, quite a lot of those graphs - population, resource use, carbon emissions, extinction rate etc - only go back as far as the beginning of civilisation/field agriculture 10K years ago, one of many ways the previous 200K-300K years of Homo Sapiens existence gets erased from the record. If they all went back that far, or even further the 2-3 million year history of the genus Homo, then the current epoch would be more easily recognised for the anomalous blip it really is.
'But seriously, the way I see it, we are where we are. The whole 8 billion.' - yeah, it's a problem, to put it mildly. I'm not in favour of a mass cull, intentional or otherwise, but equally I don't think we can afford to hold the rest of the planet hostage to keep those artificially inflated numbers up (in fact, still growing) for the long term. It's not remotely in balance with the rest of the ecology, and clearly unsustainable especially when you digest the implications of around half of global calories being derived from natural gas fertilisers: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer I'd say we need a managed decline, if the word 'managed' didn't carry so much baggage and a history of elites only ever 'managing' things to expand their empires and the resource extraction that underpins that. That's why 'how can we feed the growing population' is for me the wrong question. It's just talking about setting in motion another round of expansion, when what needs to happen is contraction. The population grows because the food has been produced to grow it, not the other way round. That was the toxic gift of agriculture, allowing civilisation to artificially raise the carrying capacity by overproducing food, largely grains. Quinn explained it best: https://howtosavetheworld.ca/2004/02/06/population-a-systems-approach/
Haven't read Pepe on the subject of BRICS - got a link? On the face of it the 'win-win' scenario of co-operation between states you describe could bring lots of benefits compared to a unipolar world system dominated by the US. However, I've not seen any challenge to the growth paradigm, and the main focus seems to be on expanding trade and ongoing resource extraction, just with more nodes in play. The belt & road initiative is not carbon neutral, and China's growth is as dependent on fossil fuels as the western economies were. Probably would be beneficial to have a multipolar order to manage the decline, though, than one crazy superpower with an itchy nuclear trigger finger...
Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence from your perch. Keep on truckin' yourself - but learn how to ride a horse and cart too, if you'll take my advice
I think a managed decline is likely to be on the agenda for belt and road, just not yet, so in that sense you are right. In other words it has to be, so watch that space. Problems ahead, of course. China has abandoned 'one child policy' purely because the pensions cannot be paid for methinks. Likely similar in the west, although the decline in having 2.1 children by the populace (so as to keep up with the pensions) is masked by immigration at the mo. I hope you noticed that.
Probably would be beneficial to have a multipolar order to manage the decline
Exactly. Would you trust the hegemon to manage this? I thought so : ).
I don't have links to Pepe's continuous stream of messages/articles on the subject, he has been messaging the words of hope for quite a while. But in essence, let the ROW have a shot at it, in the midst of a climate catastrophe. I have absolutely no faith in the 'golden billion' managing this, for cert. Corruption does not inspire me.
'It has to be' - well, quite. We'll have to see how it plays out, but all seems very far away from anything we can influence in any meaningful way. Will have a look at Pepe a bit more often then.