Vocal Voices

Probably not.
On Friday afternoon the UK was using 34 gigawatts of power. It was a sunny and windy day, ideal for solar and wind power.
Wind power was producing 5.3 gw, solar 7.6gw.
Of the rest gas was producing 12.1 gw and nuclear 4.7 gw. We were also importing 1 gw of power from the Netherlands. (I don't know about the 3 and a bit gw left over!).

But what happens in winter when the sun doesn't shine and the wind sometimes dies away, and when demand for power is at it's greatest?
At one time massive batteries were touted as the answer to keeping the lights on. Store the power in them and draw on them when wind and solar power falter.
But the energy companies have come up with a wizard wheeze - using smart meters in your home, just turn your power off. It's a lot cheaper than buying loads of massive batteries! And the government are actually considering going along with this!
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bil ... ation.html

Scottish and Southern electricity networks have proposed a plan whereby it can turn off devices in our homes, such as electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps, when demand for electricity can't be met.

And the demand for electricity must grow, because from 2025 there are proposals to ban the installation of gas boilers in new build houses. So we are looking at heat pumps, which are essentially coils of copper with water in them buried in the ground and then pumped by an electric pump around the house, in theory keeping it nice and warm.
Then there is the ban on the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars in the UK from 2035. So where is the power coming from for all the new electric cars?

The present government has to bear some responsibility for their mad outburst of virtue signalling. To listen to them you'd think the power stations will be running on vegan fairy dust. But the lack of planning for future energy needs goes back a long way. The Chinese were going to build us all nice new nuclear power stations, but that seems to have gone TU.

I don't have a clue about how this is going to be fixed but it would be nice at least to believe that there is an actual plan out there!

Don't go looking for this news on the BBC, ITN or Sky. Search the net for "Smart meters to be used to cut off household energy supplies".

It is all very murky with reports that cut offs will (only) be for a maximum of two hours per day. Items switched off will be high use appliances such as EV chargers, heat pump central heating (not gas) washing machines, electric ovens, immersion heaters etc. Oh, and the customer will be able to opt in or opt out at any time.

So that's fine, we can al sleep safe in our beds.

Well no! The fact that a law is being considered to force all households to install gen 3 smart meters should ring alarm bells. As should the fact that it is even being considered to allow the supply companies to switch power of without notice and without compensation - if they can, they will, regardless of whether you opted in or out.

And on top of this came the news on Wednesday that Hitachi was pulling out of the Wylfa nuclear power plant build, a plant that would have supplied 6% of the UK's electricity.

Get plenty of candles in - for heat and light.

There is a plan Crommers. It was called thirds. One third anuclear, one third CCGT and one third renewable.

Nuclear will bring online 3.6gw additional in 2021, CCGT is currently 2/3 by total capacity and the government allowed the largest new CCGT plant in Europe which just survived a court challenge and will be built.

Last week wind and solar were producing more than 50% of demand, but 2 days later, less than 25%. CCGT has, so far, continued to fill the gap ramping up as required.

Nuclear is the bedrock on which we layer our systems. We need the two new plants but "environmental activists" are trying their damndest to block any new nuclear plants. They fully believe that intermittent sources of power like wind and solar are all we need. We just need to adjust our expectations.

Fortunately our country is run by people who are more realistic.

As for so many vehicles to charge? Today that is an issue, but with, say, 30 million EV vehicles balancing the grid through Vehicle 2 Grid and sucking in excess wind and solar, whilst releasing it when renewables are low, it is feasible.

What we need are solid pragmatic advances bolstered by a mix of power sources whilst we work out the wrinkles. UK power consumption peaked in the 90's and has been falling since.

We are phasing out coal and that is a good thing. We are working on a balanced grid which can flex to what we need.

Today we have 20gw of wind installed and that continues to grow. Granted it never gives more than 45%, but upping that to 40gw will allow wind to provide real power at peak times and we need the infrastructure (batteries) to absorb it.

Right now we are on the right track. If we allow the evangelist to run stuff then we may be looking at similar to the 3 day week.

Perhaps that is what is needed in order for the evangelists to be stood on and pragmatism to return to the fore? I doubt people would put up with it for long.

Suff, if everything you say is true, it looks OK in theory but is a bit optimistic in practice, then why are the electricity generating companies, suppliers, Ofgem and BEIS even thinking of looking at ways of turning off individual appliances in our homes - including the wonderful EV charging points?

And why now? A statement from Ofgem said: 'The process to consider this proposal is ongoing, and a decision is not expected before spring 2021.

Here's why. We are not likely to get "thirds" in the near future, if ever. We are losing nuclear capacity faster than we can build it. Wind and solar CANNOT be relied on for peak power, well not until we have massive storage capacity to balance need / production, and that is decades away. We will not have 30 million EVs sucking power out of the grid and then putting it back in any time soon. We are currently 26,600,000 short.

Evangelism works both ways.

Oh I'm not an evangelist. We currently deliver between 5gw and 8gw of nuclear power every day. The planned power capacity of the 3 power stations the government wants to deliver is 10.2gw. In other words, build these 3 stations and we can deliver more nuclear power than today with 3 new stations, rated at 40 - 60 years of life.

Who is raging about the advisibility of this, asides from the usual suspects? The very people who don't want to have selective shutdowns.

My suspicion is that this report will be there to drive investment in Nuclear baseload, not to actually shut stuff off. They need to put the politicians between a rock and a hard place before they will stop prevarication and get on with it.

Reminding them of the consequences of the 3 day week is any easy one.

Having the numbers, the stats and the explanations is all well and good, but without the hardware they are only hypothetical. The fact is that we do not have the hardware to make them work and will not have any for some time yet.

We have plenty of evidence, from governments of all colours, that when they get their sticky little fingers in anything they all go pear shaped. Everywhere I have looked, from nuclear capacity to renewable's storage, we keep coming up short. I am not saying these things will not happen, but I am doubtful about the time frame. That, then, brings me back to the immediate problem, the idea of individual power cuts in our homes. They are well within a short time frame and they are being considered as ways to solve capacity problems.

There have to be practical reasons for the generators and suppliers going public with these ideas. They are not leaked documents, the ideas are being considered and openly talked about.

You would hope that people would be realistic about all this. People may flinch from nuclear power but what is the alternative? Even an ex-Extinction Rebellion spokesman is now in favour, because what's the alternative?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54103163

Yes, the time frame. If the start date of the project slips backwards, so does the end date except in very rare cases. And we really do need to get cracking.

There is enough shale gas under our feet to power the UK for years, but because of carbon emissions that seems to be out of the question too. You can't keep on saying no, no, no for ever though, to every option. Someone has to start making things happen, and fast.

300 years of coal, at least a hundred of shale gas. But 100 years from now that could put London underwater for the next 25,000 years. Mind you some would find that an excellent solution, so long as the drowned rats didn't overrun them trying to find higher ground. Over and above that there is a plentiful carbon energy source in the sea.

"Estimates suggest that there is about the same amount of carbon in methane hydrates as there is in every other organic carbon store on the planet." That means there is more energy in methane hydrates than in all the world's oil, coal and gas put together.

Not easy to get to off the UK, but still a huge amount of energy around the world.

WM, I know that governments screw everything up, but they are ably assisted by the press and the opposition too.

My personal feeling is people get a choice. Nuclear power baseload, until we resolve the renewable storage issue, or rolling power outages to high drain devices when there isn't enough power. We are spending billions on offshore wind farms with a 25 year operating life and 45% power capacity. The Hinckley point experiment will shave 5 years and about 6bn off the time and cost to build the next two Nuclear plants. But we seem to have got cold feet just when we have done all the work to easily build safe and secure Nuclear power plants.

So this "suggestion" hits the public. At a time when energy companies are struggling to come to terms with renewable energy, which can go negative in terms of price when it oversupplies. Personally I detect a PR department somewhere.

BTW, if you want to watch the energy consumption real time, you get it here

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

So in the event of rolling / selective power cuts -what happens to the people over 70 classed as vulnerable /priority