 | Facing the Hard Truths about Energy - the NPC report, commented | The Oil Drum: Europe | CO2 capture and storage: The economic costs |  |
UK Energy Security
Posted by Euan Mearns on July 26, 2007 - 10:00am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: coal, imports, natural gas, oil, production, security, trade deficit, united kingdom [list all tags]
In 2006, 92% of the primary energy consumed in the UK was derived from fossil solar fuels - oil, natural gas and coal.
Not so long ago the UK was self sufficient in these energy resources but now we are importing increasing amounts of all three.
Dependency upon imported energy undermines UK national security and will have potentially dire consequences for the balance of trade.
UK Primary Energy Consumption - basic statistics
A beneficial attribute of the BP annual statistical review of world energy (used throughout this report) is that it shows primary energy consumption for the 5 principal energy sources normalised to millions of tonnes of oil equivalent. This eases comparison of energy consumption from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power as shown for the UK (click all charts to enlarge).
In 1965 (when BP records begin) 98% of UK primary energy was derived from burning fossil solar fuels for transporation and power generation purposes. By 2006, the proportion of fossil solar in the energy mix had fallen marginally to 92% - largely due to an increase in nuclear energy.
In this period, the energy mix has changed significantly. In 1965, no natural gas was used. But with the discovery and development of offshore natural gas in the North Sea, the proportion of natural gas in the UK energy mix has increased steadily since 1968 largely at the expense of burning coal.
In 1965, the UK population was 54,350,000 and this had grown to 60,245,000 by 2005
This equates to 3.6 tonnes oil equivalent per person per annum in 1965 and 3.8 tonnes oil equivalent per person per annum in 2005. UK per capita energy consumption has been essentially flat in the period. Energy efficiency gains in transportation, building standards and in more energy efficient appliances have been lost to an overall rise in living standards and more prolific use of energy in transportation, single occupancy dwellings, foreign travel etc.
Each person in the UK uses on average 10 kgs of oil equivalent energy every day. The main message of this post is that it is in the vital national interest that this profligate level of energy consumption (and waste) is substantially reduced.
I will now look at the oil, natural gas and coal production and consumption records for the UK for the past 40 years and show how swings from deficit to surplus and back to deficit have affected our overall balance of trade. I will also examine oil and gas production forecasts for the period to 2012 and project how this will affect the trade balance and energy security.
Oil and gas prices
Historic average annual oil and gas prices are lifted from the BP statistical review. Inflation adjusted prices based on 2005 $US have been used.
Future oil and gas prices are of course impossible to predict with certainty. However, as a central aim of this post is to illustrate the potential impact of energy imports upon UK trade balance it is essential to make assumptions about future energy costs.
Future oil prices are based upon the oil price model presented here. This translates to an average 16% increase per annum to 2012.
| Year | $US / barrel |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 70 |
| 2008 | 80 |
| 2009 | 90 |
| 2010 | 110 |
| 2011 | 130 |
| 2012 | 160 |
Future gas prices are based on a 5% annual increase as shown below. BP quote gas production figures in BCM (billions of cubic meters) whilst prices are quoted in millions of BTUs (British thermal units). To convert, from BCM to BTU millions the former is multiplied by 36 million (see sheet on conversion factors in the BP review).
| Year | $US / million BTU |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 7.4 |
| 2008 | 7.7 |
| 2009 | 8.1 |
| 2010 | 8.5 |
| 2011 | 9.0 |
| 2012 | 9.4 |
Future price estimates do not include adjustment for monetary inflation or changes in exchange rates.
It is taken for granted that some may view the future oil and gas price estimates as too high whilst others may take the view they are too low. Future price estimates are presented for illustrative purposes only.
Oil
The historic oil production and consumption data shows large UK oil imports pre 1976. Once North Sea oil production got underway, imports were gradually reduced until in 1981, the UK became a net oil exporter. The UK remained an oil exporter until 2005. But in 2006, with falling production the UK once again resumed importing oil.
1.74 million barrels per day is a key figure for the UK as this represents the approximate level of daily oil consumption. If we produce more than this amount we can sit back and relax in the sure knowledge that our oil needs can be met from domestic supplies. Less than 1.74 million barrels per day means that the UK must compete for oil imports in the increasingly competitive world oil export market.
What will happen next? Three oil production forecasts are shown:
The first is by Alex Kemp who is Schlumberger Professor of Petroleum Economics at the University of Aberdeen. Professor Kemp has recently been appointed as energy economics advisor to the Scottish Parliament. The details of the Kemp forecast can be found here.
The second is by myself (Mearns2) the details of which can be found here and here.
The third is by the UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) who have responsibility for compiling UK oil and gas production forecasts and reporting those to the UK government. The DTI produce a forecast range. The upper range boundary is more or less coincident with Kemp whilst the lower range boundary is more or less coincident with Mearns2. Given this coincidence, the discussion will only consider the Kemp and Mearns2 forecasts.
The key difference between the Kemp and Mearns2 forecasts is that Kemp sees production rising this year and next and this mainatins the UK oil exporter status for a few years yet. The Mearns2 forecast sees the UK as a permanent oil importer with annual production declining at a rate of around 8% per annum.
The impact these different forecasts have upon the UK trade balance is quite profound. At times of high oil prices, oil exporters are handsomly rewarded whilst importers are penalised. The falling production and rising oil price implicit in the Mearns2 model shows the UK oil trade balance plunging from a surplus of over £5 billion in 2000 to a deficit of over £20 billion by 2012.
Which forecast is more likely to be correct? Only time will tell. Near term, the biggest impact upon UK oil production is the giant Buzzard Field that came on stream in January 2007. Production from Buzzard has pushed the UK into oil surplus for the first 4 months of the year according to the DTI Table et3_10 (XL spread sheet). However, oil and NGL production was 3.8% lower for Jan-April compared with the same period last year and I calculate an average daily production rate of 1.74 million bpd which is bang on UK average consumption levels and slightly higher than my forecast of 1.67 million bpd for the full year. Offshore maintenance programs combined with the relentless impact of decline means that production during the first half of the year is normally higher than during the second half and I would judge that my forecast for the full year is looking good.
Natural gas
Offshore natural gas production in the UK got underway in earnest around 1968. Production grew steadily for over 30 years and peaked in 2000 and since then gas production has fallen, gradually at first, and then accelerated decline since 2003.
Up until around 1995, most domestic gas production was consumed within the UK. Domestic gas production was allowed to substitue for coal in home heating and in power generation resulting in cleaner air in our cities and helping to solve the acid rain problem associated with burning sulphur rich UK coal in power stations. Up until 1995 the UK also imported North Sea natural gas from Norway and Holland. But then in an extraordinary bout of bravado, the UK exported gas for a brief spell between 1996 and 2003.
The UK has become hooked on natural gas for home heating and power generation and with plummeting production faces serious issues in securing future supplies. The production forecast is the DTI median forecast and combining this with assumed constant consumption produces an import requirement of over 40 bcm per annum in 2012. It is by no means certain that consumption will stay constant as new gas fired power generation plants are still being sanctioned and built!
The UK has pinned future gas supplies on a two pronged strategy. The most important strand is the new Langeled pipeline to Norway. This is the world's longest sub-sea pipeline starting at the Ormen Lange gas field off Mid Norway and ending in Easington, Yorkshire in the UK. At its peak, Ormen Lange will produce around 22 bcm per annum or around one half of the projected UK import requirement in 2012. It has to be noted that the UK will compete with continental Europe for Ormen Lange gas.
The second strand is to import liquified natural gas (LNG), especially from the North Field in Qatar. The UK will have to compete with the whole of the natural gas importing world to secure these supplies. Three terminals have been built:
The Isle of Grain with import capacity of 4.4 bcm per annum
Milford Haven (Dragon) with import capacity of 3 bcm per annum
Milford Haven (South Hook) with initial import capacity of 10.5 bcm per annum
The combined LNG capacity of 17.9 bcm per annum plus Ormen Lange capacity of 22 bcm per annum provides the magic number of 39.9 bcm per annum compared with the projected import requirement of 40 bcm per annum by 2012. So long as no one else wants that Norwegian and Qatari gas the UK should be OK.
UK government sources report Isle of Grain at 5 to 15 bcm per annum and Milford Haven at 10 to 25 bcm per annum.
Whilst there may be doubts about the availability of gas for import to the UK, there seems to be unanimous agreement on the fact that the UK will have to import ever increasing amounts of gas for the foreseeable future and the imapct this will have upon the trade balance is shown below.
A surplus of £1 billion in 2000 is converted to a deficit of £8 billion by 2012. Note that this model assumes no growth in domestic gas consumption and a relatively modest increase in gas prices. There is also the possibility that the DTI forecast for domestic gas production proves over-optimistic.
This chart taken from a UK government report shows gas demand increasing to 2020 and a gas import requirement of 100 bcm per anum.
How many LNG cargoes is that? LNG ships have current capacity of around 2.8 bcf. That translates to around 0.07 bcm, suggesting that the UK alone would require around 1400 LNG deliveries per annum to meet this import requirement.
Coal
Back in 1965 (when BP records begin) coal accounted for around 60% of UK primary energy consumption and most of that was met by domestic supply. Both domestic production and consumption of coal fell steadily from 1965 to 1999 when coal accounted for only 16% of UK energy consumed. The spike down in 1984 represents the miners' strike. Since 1999 coal consumption as a percentage has once again begun to rise and in 2006 it represented 19% of the UK total.
So much for the UK government's feigned concern about global warming. Faced with the choice of switching off the lights, saving the planet and reaping the anger of the electorate, the UK government has made the pragmatic decision to keep the lights on, come what may, whilst voicing concerns for the welfare of polar bears.
In plotting these data I was somewhat surprised to see that the UK was once a significant exporter of coal and need to note that the production / consumption figures in tonnes do not agree with the BP data when transformed into BOE as shown in the next diagram. This shows the UK as a net coal importer since the 1980s. The trends, however, are the same, and show increasing dependence of the UK upon imported coal.
We have had much debate recently on The Oil Drum about the status of UK and Global coal reserves. See for example:
The Coal Question and Climate Change
Coal reserves and resources - a gentle cough
I tend to side with Heading Out on this debate and take the view that the UK has substantial deep coal resources that are uneconomic in the current economic and political climate. I think this climate is about to change and that a soaring energy trade deficit (see below) will result in a political decision to subsidise new deep UK coal mines in order to protect UK energy security and mitigate the plummeting trade deficit.
Energy and Trade Balance
Pulling all the data together for oil, gas and coal with nuclear and hydro provides the following picture of the overall UK energy balance. Note that following consultation with Jerome, I have shown nuclear as domestic supply due to the fact that the cost of importing uranium is a negligible part of the total cost of nuclear power (this is open to debate).
What we see is that during the 1960s and 1970s, the UK was a major importer of energy, mainly oil. At that time oil was cheap and the UK had a large manufacturing base, exporting goods all over the world. Trade back then was balanced (see below).
The advent of North Sea oil and gas resulted in a golden era of energy surplus from 1980 to 2004. However, with falling North Sea oil and gas production the energy balance is now plunging back into the red. So are we to return to the circumstances of the 1960s and 1970s? The answer is no! Back then energy was cheap and plentiful and the UK had a major manufacturing and export base. International energy supplies are now increasingly expensive, increasingly scarce, sourced from increasingly hostile geographic and political environments and our economy has lost much of its manufacturing export base that once enabled us to pay our way.
The UK trade balance has 3 main components: 1) goods, 2) oil and gas, and 3) services. The latter is made up mainly of financial services channelled through the major finance centres of London and Edinburgh. The chart is compiled from official government statistics using table 300570782. I have deducted oil and gas receipts from the goods column (IKBJ) to provide a separate picture for goods (less oil gas) and for Oil & Gas receipts.
From 1980 to 2004, the rapidly deteriorating trade deficit in goods was partly offset by surpluses in services and Oil & Gas. The Oil & Gas surplus, however, has now disappeared and the deficit looks set to get much worse as shown. The trade deficit of £54 billion recorded in 2006 looks set to hit £100 billion per annum by 2012.
The government and main stream media (MSM) appear to be extremely sanguine about these eye popping numbers and one reason is that the deficit normalised to the size of the growing economy is much less significant.
In percentage terms, the annual deficit is no worse now than on occasions in the past. The absence of a period of surplus for the last 20 years, however, is resulting in the cumulative deficit expanding. Can the cumulative deficit be allowed to expand forever and how will it be repaid?
One of the main points of this post is to point out that rising North Sea oil and gas production rescued the UK trade balance during the 1980s and 1990s. The solution then is the problem now. Ballooning energy imports are set to make deterioration in the trade balance a whole lot worse.
Government response
The UK government is fully committed to private companies running our energy production and energy distribution industries and to a large extent our transportation infrastructure. These companies have one motive and that is to maximise turnover and profits via the eternal growth paradigm. The government tends only to interfere at the margin via regulation, taxation and occasionally setting strategy.
In recent years the government has:
1. Supported a massive expansion of UK airports
2. Supported on-going expansion of the road network
3. Shied away from increasing taxation on energy consumption
4. Introduced and then doubled windfall taxation on the profits of North Sea operating comapnies
5. Prevaricated about climate change, conservation and renewable energy without taking any decisive action.
The whole energy debate is shrouded in a carbon dioxide mist whilst the main thrust of policy has been to encourage the expansion of fossil fuel based transportation and to penalise the energy producers. The measures supported by the government are in my opinion the exact opposite of what are required to provide greater energy security for the UK.
What needs to be done?
The answer here is very simple. Domestic energy production should be maximised whilst energy consumption should be minimised. The strategy needs to be set within the context of national interest and energy security instead of being obscured by the fog of climate change.
1. The primary energy policy goal should be for the UK to remain in balance with respect to primary energy production and consumption.
2. To achieve this, domestic energy production should be expanded and in the near term this will inevitably mean expanding domestic coal production, nuclear energy and renewables with proven high ERoEI which for the UK means hydro electric and wind power.
2b. Construct a network of combined heat and power generators running on combustible domestic, industrial and agricultural waste.
Expanding these energy sources will unlikely replace the decline in domestic oil and gas supplies and the other side of the equation is conservation.
3. Meaningful energy conservation measures requires a clear and detailed understanding of where most energy is consumed by our society and a first step to conservation should be to audit our energy consumption patterns. Where is most energy being wasted and where can the easiest and least painful conservation measures be made? I suspect that government buildings (schools, hospitals, government housing and offices) and industry are profligate wasters of energy.
4. Set staged targets for per capita energy use reduction and identify stategies to achieve them. This must be linked to the primary objective of achieving energy balance which will likely require large incisions to be made in energy consumption.
5. Cars / automobiles are an obvious target and I would advocate aggressive legislation on motor efficiency that will inevitably mean reduced engine size, power and weight.
6. The strategy for cars should combine with a strategy for phased electrification of the automobile fleet and a proper evaluation / feasibility study of implementing V2G (vehicle to grid) technology combined with expansion of renewable energy sources.
7. Electrified mass transit systems should be built where possible.
8. Encourage pan-European taxation of jet fuel.
9. Legislate to discourage single occupancy dwellings and to encourage multi-occupancy. This has the added benefit of solving the apparent shortage of housing and will save the enormous energy cost of building millions of new homes.
10. Legislate to upgrade building standards for homes, industry and public buildings including the incorporation of micro renewables. Enable the upgarding of the existing building stock to improve energy efficiency - ensuring all the while that measures introduced do actually result in significant energy savings.
11. Audit our food production and distribution systems. Legislate in favour of energy efficiency which will inevitably limit choice. Ensure the energy infrastructure exists to guarantee our future food supplies.
12. Mount a public awareness exercise aimed at informing the public about decisions about energy use that are to be made on their behalf and their best interests.
These may seem draconian measures but they are in fact intended to provide a "business as usual model" for the UK based on using significantly less energy. There will inevitably be certain business casualties. But many new business opportunities will also be created.
The alternative may be to face real energy shortages in 2 to 8 years time when the anticipated supplies of imported natural gas and oil do not appear. Energy shortages combined with spiralling energy costs and energy import bills may paralyse our economy.
Two interesting links sent to me this morning by the DTI:
Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2007 (large pdf)
Both published by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform - BERR - previously DTI?
Hi Euan,
Very thorough work!
You say that "In 1965, the UK population was 54,350,000 and this had grown to 60,245,000 by 2005" and that "The main message of this post is that it is in the vital national interest that this profligate level of energy consumption (and waste) is substantially reduced."
Energy consumption is directly related to the population.
Given your graph on "UK Energy Balance" showing a worsening energy balance, do you think that, under your heading of "What needs to be done?", there should be another recommendation something like this
There appears to be a movement towards slower population growth rates
UK needs a two-child limit, says population report
http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2123344,00.html
However, I appreciate that any discussion about population limits can be unpopular
World Congress of Families Outraged by UK Group that Wants to Limit Family Size
"They Want the British to Commit Demographic Suicide"
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/319041/world_congress_of_famili...
For those interested, the report on the two child limit was produced by the Optimum Population Trust
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.media.html
A quote from their news release
“Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than unprecedented conflict and suffering.”
Ace - population and demographics are of course vitally important to this debate.
It is not just the number of children that couples have but the age they are determines population growth. If couples wait till they are over 30 then you have 3 generations per century. Under 20 and you have over 5 generations per century. The UK has the worst record in Europe, I believe for under age teenage pregnancy.
The UK (along with many OECD countries) has a major problem at present with an ageing population. The governments concern is how to pay for pensions and caring for the elderly. And so they are encouraging immigration from Eastern Europe. At a personal level I think this is a great thing - we have loads of young, well educated and motivated workers comming to the UK. This of course boosts our population.
The government has pursued two policies in recent years that arguably have a negative impact upon our per capita energy consumption. One is a policy of caring for the elederly at home. At a human level this is a wonderful policy. But with millions of single old folks sitting at home alone all day with the heating full on (paid for by government) watching TV sure uses a lot of energy. It also keeps these dwellings off the housing market - creating a housing shortage and the need to build millions of new homes.
The other is education policy where Tony Blair decided that 50% of UK youngsters should attend university. This has resulted in a large migration of youngsters from country areas into the cities where they end up living alone in 2 bedroon flats - millions of which have been built recently. Previously they may have stayed with parents longer in the family home.
The role of religion in shaping world population growth also needs to be critically examined. The world population clearly cannot go on growing for ever. Right now I beleive a major famine is just around the corner.
[begin sarcasm]
Doomer porn! Doomer porn! How dare you bring such stuff into the holy of holies that we call TOD!!!!
[end sarcasm]
In truth, Euan, I agree with you on that statement too. The grain situation for the last 8 years has not looked very good at all as we've plunged from just over 100 days of global grain supply to about 50 days of global grain supply. Given that 7 of the 8 last years resulted in drawing down stocks of grain and in that time we've cut our stocks in half, we are literally 8 years away from famine if present trends continue.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Cereal Killer
This chart suggests cereal stocks reaching zero before 8 years. A topic I think we need a detailed look at. Stuart was working on a post but has gotten sidetracked - definitely a subject to pursue though. I was also interested in the comments of Ziz down the thread about fertilizer production being concentrated in the ME. This makes sense but doesn't half open up a major pile of security issues.
Isn't most grain used to feed livestock?
Couldn't we reduce our per-capita grain consumption by about 80% by going vegetarian?
Ya, enjoy those burgers and steaks while you can.
Euan,
thanks for a stark and devastating analysis of our future - or lack of it.
The significant graph is to my mind, the balance of payments. While many cannot or will not see the impact of a Hubbert curve, the balance of payments dropping off a cliff will get attention with any politician.
Regarding population.
IMO: The UK is full up. We could not easily feed ourselves in 1917 or 1943. Feeding 60+ million is impossible.
More immigration both legal and illegal is simply going to be grist to the BNP mill and, as the economy declines, the BNP will be fast off the blocks with 'the answer'. To all who will not face this fact, I say this: The lifeboat is full. It is better to face this now than see a BNP government returned in 2013 or 2018. (My feet are too old to wear jack-boots, though I suspect I may find myself on the wrong side of the razor wire :-(...)
Regarding the costs of switching to alternative transport modes , building Nukes, alternative energy systems etc.
We are truly between a rock and a hard place.
Externally, we will be competing for resources with other countries. As well as oil and gas, this will include food staples
Internally, we will have competing claims on a dwindling wealth. 60% of UK 'wealth' is in housing which is merely a halucination. Competition for the wealth will come, (and simultaneously) from Rail Infrastructure, Nuke building, a burgeoning unemployment sector. This is without even considering the costs of continuing in Iraq and Afganistan, Trident replacement, our two new carriers and of course the trippling costs of the Olympics. Also throw in these costs:
Unfunded public sector pensions, the cost the ID card system, and any not yet recognised contingencies.
It may also be reasonable to assume that the billions lost in our summer of floods may be a more recurrent feature of life in the UK.
In short the charges on the ever diminishing purse will increase. As we speak, the UK is highly taxed and there is not much more margin for such increases.
The fact that we no longer sell manufactured goods but in fact now derive the bulk of our wealth in the City of London from share swapping, hedging etc means that as we go into recession and these spurious methods of earnings become increasingly fallacious both in the UK and in our dealings with the rest of the world suggest a shrinking tax base at a time of increasing demands upon that same tax base.
In short, wealth will be sucked out of the UK so fast, our ears will pop and the money required for nation saving projects will just not be there.
Forget pensions, care in old age, expensive medical care etc. These other huge charges on the state will evapourate.
I think we are too late.
God, this makes me so bloody angry.
How was the pizza by the way :-)
Even more worrying - if you look at the population pyramid of the UK:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/svg_pyramid/default.htm
you will see that post '67 there was a MASSIVE drop in birth rate to BELOW maintenance level. I assume this is birth control. Therefore 1965/54 million should now be more like 45 - 50 million.
We have seen 15 million recorded [and the UK gov is famous for not recording the full numbers] immigrants. Hell, we could have a sustainable forest each and zero unemployment if it wasnt for this massive influx. And the flood is increasing yearly
Zero unemployment is impossible:
- Fringe unemployment: people who change jobs for any reason, voluntarily or unvoluntarily don't have an occupation in between.
- As soon as labor becomes short in supply, owners either automate, outsource or abandon their production.
Thanks Euan for a very interesting post.
I suspect that there may be a very quick upswing of interest in underground coal gasification in the UK. It has the potential to turn those deep underground coal seams into oil and gas. Some companies believe they've got the technology mostly right and are working on scale-up.
Does anyone here have some direct knowledge of this technology ?
I have worked on aspects of this in the past.
HO
Euan - a magnificent piece of work which should be required reading for every single important decision maker in the UK. As an initial entrypoint I suggest e-mailing it to the various Party energy spokespeople (you can forego the BNP - irony of ironies they are well switched on to the problem) and to the various economics editors of the relevant UK papers and magazines.
Well done!!!
A fantastic article. If only our nation could understand.
One thing that's always annoyed me is that we in the UK have relatively short commutes (At least compared to the US), and, importantly, a high-voltage, high power domestic electric supply. Plus a relatively mild climate.
This makes the UK one of the best places to try rolling out electric cars (Certainly better than, say, California), so what on earth is stopping them..?
It would require a 10-fold expansion of Nuclear plant capacity, but this does not seem to be a vast challenge. I remain appalled by some 'Green' groups that
Another part of the solution is general domestic electrification - the current system of having domestic energy heating and cooking met by natural gas 'locks in' quite a bit of consumption. And I think that natural gas is a much worse problem than oil for the UK.
"This makes the UK one of the best places to try rolling out electric cars (Certainly better than, say, California), so what on earth is stopping them..?"
Exactly correct, but I think your calculation of what would be needed to convert a sizable portion of the British car fleet to electric is incorrect when you say..."It would require a 10-fold expansion of Nuclear plant capacity, but this does not seem to be a vast challenge."
Why? The cars would be recharged mostly at night, meaning on off peak power....I still do not think that most people understand how much spare electric generating capacity most modern countries have at "off peak" times, which is most of the time! Toyota is now road testing it's first "plug hybrids", full "roadworthy" certification given by the Japanese government. This, folks, is radical news. In leaving behind the old primitive ways, we are getting ready to cross the Rubicon...
Another issue is methane recapture. the U.K. is up to it's bloody ears in cows and humans all of which do one thing well.....crap. As the EROEI fanatics will tell you, you can not run an economy on it's waste (it's like a snake trying to consume itself from the tail forward), but you can salvage a great deal of energy from waste that is going to occur anyway....farm, landfill, and sewer methane recapture should be a major effort in a country that will soon have to import so much natural gas, and in which every BTU will count.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Hi Roger,
its only off-peak power because we arent using it. If you timeshift the load to 100% utilise grid cpacity then there is no off-peak..
as for electric heating [post 2 above] the energy used nowadays would blow the grid in winter. 60 years ago UK heating was coal, and you heated 1 or 2 rooms midwinter. I grew up with it, and outside toilets. You would have riots if you tried that comfort level again.
Mind you when you cycle everywhere, a roof and walls seems like luxury..
Pondlife -
Actually, the average Combi boiler seems to be rated at 24kW, which is probably an over-estimate of the needs for electric heating - it's possible to have it on longer at a lower level.
''60 years ago UK heating was coal, and you heated 1 or 2 rooms midwinter. I grew up with it, and outside toilets. You would have riots if you tried that comfort level again.''
Did you also scrape the ice off the inside of your bedroom window? ...
If we could guarantee even that minimum level of existence in the future, I would weep with joy. And yes, that was with 50 odd million , not 60 million + people.
Something else:
To house and keep a family now takes two wage earners. (isnt progress a wonderful thing?). 60 years ago, a respectable skilled job would feed and house a family (taxes did not start so low down the wage scale as now). What did this mean? It meant that the wife and mother could function at home and concentrate on a level of thrift and efficiency unknown today.
As a student I remember the glass of water I always have by my bed (in case of emergency dehydration) freezing once.
The toilet was not outside - but shared on the landing.
When I moved to Norway in 1983 all we could afford to eat was bread and soup for several months. And the joys of home brewing:-)
home brewing followed by cold distillation?
Ice cold in Oslo.
Well 'ave a 'appy 'oliday.
Superb example of joined up thinking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6918637.stm
Charges 'threaten' green energy
Campaigners are concerned wind farm plans could be affected
Plans to increase charges to remote generators could undermine renewable energy schemes in Scotland, according to campaigners.
Electricity regulator Ofgem said it was "minded to" back changes to the cost of transmission losses.
Generators nearer cities and areas of high demand, which have least losses en route to users, would pay less.
Opponents fear the changes would discriminate against projects such as wind farms in the north of Scotland.
They are concerned that such a move would encourage firms to locate in the south of England instead.
Ofgem said the scheme could lead to an overall saving of about £15m annually.
£15 MILLION...
You just couldnt make this up.
Symptomatic of why we wont make it.
This is still a consultation - see the Ofgem website. Responses to be in by 31 July. I have emailed them:
"I have just been made aware of this consultation by an article in The Scotsman.
This proposal seems to decrease the attraction of developing the richest
resources of renewable power in the north of the UK.
The oil and gas resources in the North Sea are depleting rapidly, and the UK
is returning to being a major importer of oil and gas. There will be a
significant adverse effect on the UK balance of payments as a result.
Everything possible should be done to encourage the rapid development of all
our indigenous energy resources, especially renewable resources in the
north. This proposal does not give such encouragement, and indeed may go in
the opposite direction.
The underlying reasoning certainly makes sense when considering power that
is generated by burning fuel, and especially if such a fuel produces CO2. It
makes less sense where the fuel cost is zero, and has no direct CO2
emissions, as with wind and tide generated power.
The transmission loss charges should be reduced for renewable power produced
by wind and tide, as some of the richest resources are located far from
consumers.
If the powers that Ofgem presently have do not allow for such discrimination
then Government should legislate to grant such powers."
I drive a small electric car (its a converted Rover Metro) in Coventry. I charge it (usually) at night.
There's a small degree of curiosity but in the main, people do not notice it because it is not big and powerful and cool.
I think the barrier to EVs (at least in my community) is that people have much more regard to their social status than to econonomic or environmental considerations.
most people, therefore, could not countenance giving up their large, powerful petrol car because of the drop in perceived status and road presence.
The will only change to EVs when a really clear signal (I mean totally unambiguous) tells them that it is the fashionable thing to do.
At the moment they aspire to 4 litre blacked out Range Rovers.
Carbon - Coventry UK
Hi Carbon,
Did you convert the car yourself or buy it like that?
What are the Tax, MOT & law implications?
I converted my mountain bike to electric assist as an experiment ... I'm not sure it's stricly street legal at 900W but goes like a rocket for around 5 miles or so until the nicads run flat.
I agree about the status thing ... but actually the only person who cares what car you drive is you! I persuaded my company to let me have expenses instead of expensive company car and had a more appropriate SMART car instead ... everybody accepted it ... but sadly none copied it! More fool them, I saved thousands of pounds in company car tax evey year ... to say nothing of the petrol.
Xeroid.
Hi Xeroid
I bought it from AVT http://www.avt.uk.com/ It was second hand and the batteries were dead. I rewired the car and welded in some new battery frames to fit 6V golf cart batteries instead of the original 12V batteries. You can find my car on this site http://www.austinev.org/evalbum It'll be the only Rover Metro in Coventry. I think you could put your electric bike there if it isn't there already.
I pay normal-ish for car insurance, but nothing for road tax.
I think AVT do an electric Smart car! The original Smart car is already pretty good though.
It was this site that made me do it!
Carbon - Coventry UK
Thanks for that Carbon, I'll do some more research.
Andytk, I totally agree about the batteries ... the reason people buy second hand cars is because they are cheaper than new ... if they potentially have the cost of new batteries people won't buy second hand even. The whole point of Peak Oil is that it isn't business as usual, changes to lifestyle WILL be made.
I think if Euan's work above is anywhere near correct it is a mistake to think that the fuel will be available to do 200 mile trips ... the petrol engine won't be a cost effective alternative.
So, IMO the options will be public transport (long & short distance), electric personal transport & bikes (short distance) or walk (local). The oil will largely be reserved for agriculture and the military. Eventually, no aeroplanes or long distance holidays either!
Xeroid.
My guess for Sweden is a fallback to a 1950:s middle class ideal. Monday - friday bicycling or a scooter to school and work or some collective traffic if it is a long way. For weekends a car in the garage and a visit to more distant friends, relatives, boat or cottage. If plug-in hybrids work out a large part of the commuting will be by car instead and the attractive area around large workplaces or collective traffic nodes will be much larger.
Parts of the 1960-2000 devlopment running in reverse due to changing market conditions will probably be a much faster change then 40 years since we now have much better infrastructure and a lot of the basic parts of the old structure are still there.
I agree. The 50's with TGV and Ipods.
No, you're wrong.
Many families in the UK only have one car (and indeed parking space for one car).
As such it must do everything that their car will ever be called upon to do.
This means that it must retain the ability to travel 200 miles or more and then be refilled in 1 minute before travelling another 100 miles.
How many people would willingly pay thousands for a new vehicle that will only travel 60 miles on a charge? History has proven time and time again that this number of consumers is incredibly limited.
Believing any different does not make that the case.
And that's before I touch on the issue of modern batteries inability to stand up to even 5 years worth of traction duties. I'm willing to bet that you're homemade EV will need its batteries replaced before they're 5 years old (unless your only travelling 5 miles a day, in which case I concede they may last a decade).
Again with the high cost of batteries, the average consumer will simply not put up with them failing every 5 years or so.
Especially when there is a cost effective alternative. The petrol engine...
Andy
Andytk -
Depends where you live; in my block of Suburbia, 2 cars is standard. Replacing one with an electric would involve no sacrifice at all.
There is no particular reason why such cars can't get 200+miles to a charge. The real reason electric cars have not sold as much is because of the noddy designs.
For 1-car households, it would be harder.. but you would have to make some major improvements to the rail network alongside the electric car scheme, so people who made long journeys a few times a year could take the train. If petrol reached £3-4 per liter, the economics would make sense for a lot of people.
As far as the batteries go, I would expect that people would have a 'battery insurance policy' alongside other insurance, allowing for the replacement of batteries as problems happened.