User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
This back of an envelope calculation shows that the UK won't be importing all of those 4.3m boe/d in 2023. Since we won't be importing it that only leaves the two options of either generating the balance indigenously or doing without (either painlessly or painfully). When considering the potential for indigenous production it becomes clear that there will have to be a degree of doing without.
Unfortunately these aren't the current terms of reference, I'm hoping the Energy Review will take us closer to this kind of thinking.
The aspect which really concerns me is the lack of adaption to what, on basis of Government's own figures looks a looming major UK energy crisis. I suspect almost everyone on this site knows that current trends are totally unsustainable...but try telling that to decision makers, business leaders and local chambers of commerce. All I read in local (Aberdeen area) press is of such pressure groups promoting heavily major road and aviation expansion (and being supported in this stance by our regional press who see such developments as 'essential and a very good thing'). Almost every week we read of new flight routes being added to Scottish airports, a large percentage of which are internal routes already covered by frequent rail services. What's even more disturbing is that such aviation expansion is being financially supported by the 'Scottish Executive's Aviation Route Development Fund', in other words by taxpayers. Routes are even being added between Manchester / Liverpool and Glasgow which is only a 3 hr rail trip.
We are seeing some rail expansion in Scotland, but nowhere near enough. Ironically much of the investment is being targeted to provide direct rail connections to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports - to make it easier to fly. Taking UK as a whole there have been virtually no major rail electrification schemes in recent years when the energy scenario dictates that the majority of routes should be fully electrified. The one exception I'm aware of is the project to electrify the route east of Leeds to ECML to provide a 2nd electric path given that the existing electric route via Wakefield Westgate is already near capacity.
In the meantime new developments continue to be 'business parks or equivalent' i.e. not conducive to being serviced by public transport or within walking or cycling range of communities. Not least the Scottish Executive is determined to press ahead with 2 x £0.5bn road schemes - the Aberdeen WPR and the M74 urban extension into Glasgow, the latter contrary to recommendations of the public enquiry which the Scottish Executive has over-ruled. At times one wonders if it's worth devoting efforts to try to turn these '1970's type schemes' around but simply let the powers that be go ahead and build them on the basis that 'it has to get worse to get better'.
"Finally it takes a blogger (zceb90) to hit the spot which Tony has finally realised ...this 80% of fuel is imported and needs paying for.... zceb90 calculates it with gloomy accuracy .."Assuming UK gas ......" says Lord Patel at Postman Patel.
As Founder of the Forthcoming UK Energy Deficit FCUKED I wear several hats (Lord Patel is only one of many) and have discovered that with Mr Blair it is essential to read what he says with great care ... also where and when. I was fortunate enough to be the first person to ask him about both the futile onshore wind farm policy and nuclear power in Manchester in January 2005.
Having met him, I have to say , he is good at what he is good at. He can absorb briefs and has immensely strong political antennae, and I think relishes getting public feedback.
Behind this of course is a totally blank political brain, he has no ideology, no principles, no fixed ideas other than popularity, survival and a certain fiscal mendacity.
He has learnt how to slide through the tackles and pre-empts the storm clouds - meeting obscure people in Manchester, magazine editors more concerned about the brouhaha on top shelf wank mags for teenagers than the next few decades of UK energy policy.
The MSM do not show an interest in Mancunians, however well educated, informed they may be, the Metropolitan village is their arena so TB can assay a few steps... the Magazine editors have long time horizons , the headlines overnight are not their concern.
He can then turn round and say ... well I talked about nuclear power why way back in January 2004, I said to the magazine editors only last week ....
The most startling thing however is not the sheer wanton ignorance of the Press, is that TB told the TRUTH. Pure unalloyed 24 carat, classified A1 at Lloyds, copper bottomed TRUTH.
The problem is that now having embraced the TRUTH in a magical Damascene moment, TB hasn't a fucking clue what to do,The DTI (as was)haven't a fucking clue what to do, Ditto the quangos, academic chatterers, hangers on , City spivs dealing in carbon trades, hot wind farmers, ....
What to do ?
It would not be unreasonable to say that if you locked up the readers / bloggers herein assembled, in a comfy country hotel , we could knock out a pretty damn good national energy policy ever a long weekend.
To resort as ever to acronyms, a Useful Notion for UK Energy Deficit - or UNFCUKED.
The Glasgow / Stirling route also has an existing 100mph rail link with expresses covering the c35 mile trip from Stirling to central Glasgow in 30 minutes or a bit less. There are some rail capacity issues here - short platforms at intermediate stops necessitating short trains, absence of any electrification and lack of a through rail service between Queen St and Central stations (Glasgow).
Despite the above we are presented with yet another road scheme which, inevitably will encourage more car commuting with average of 1.2 occupants per vehicle. The Scottish CBI are even describing the A80 upgrade as 'inadequate' - they want a 3 lane motorway over a much longer section. This scheme raises some questions: 1) is the SE talking to Tony Blair with regard to fuelling all the extra vehicle kms which the route upgrade will inevitably generate? and 2) do the road scheme promoters know something about future energy supplies and costs which those of us on this forum have so far missed?
To quote Jim Kunstler - 'we are investing in a system which has no future'.