If the aim is sustainability, this is a key question, rather than assuming that some form of energy mix will enable growth to continue indefinitely.

If the answer is "no", other questions may arise. Such as, "how long can a growth based society be sustained?" and "should we attempt to address the sustainability issue if it is determined to be a problem far enough into the future?".

Tony

This would bring people and industry to understand, that regardless of  their views regarding the reality of peak oil, the fuel they burn in their cars, homes and businesses is going to increase in cost relentlessly.  That will  spur conservation,  use of  more efficient vehicles, insulation of buildings, development of renewables etc.  That will have the desired effect of reducing emissions.

The tax raised can be utilised to assist with upgrading the insulation of older homes, developing electrified mass transit systems, upgrading the National Grid to handle greater use of electricity from more diverse sources, and for providing incentives for renewable technologies.

This would require a massive information campaign so that the reasons behind this are understood.  Without that, to introduce such measures would be electoral suicide.  For that reason I strongly advocate that a "Hirsch" style report is commissioned for the UK, and given the widest possible publication.

Unfortunately, there is no real alternative to the building of new Nuclear Power stations to replace the shortfall caused by the closure of older stations, and by the inevitable decline in the availability and reliability of imported gas.    Money spent in upgading gas infrastructure is wasted.

I think we should make the effort to respond to the DTI energy review, by doing so we could hope that at least someone involved makes the effort to visit TOD UK and TOD. Perhaps you could suggest a timetable for pulling the response together. I might suggest about a week for initial suggestions and debate here, a bit less than a week to pull a draft together (possibly involving several people / groups of people if we have the numbers, perhaps working on different aspects) and a week to debate and refine that here before submitting.

I'll come up with some detailed comments once I've read the DTI stuff, within the next few days, may I encourage others here to do likewise? How about asking TOD to post a thread for comments once we've hatched our plan?

A couple of initial thoughts:

• We need to reduce gas fired electricity generation as soon as possible, gas is more beneficial as a heating / cooking fuel.
  
• I think mini and micro generation could have a significant part to play, development of this can be more rapidly and cost-effectively ramped up than large scale generation like clean coal and nuclear.
  
• UK needs an in depth fossil energy resources study, it needs it FAST!  I think it will become increasingly unwise to remain dependent on imported supplies.
  
• Nuclear has a role, certainly I would suggest we maintain or replace current nuclear electricity generation capacity, at least. It will be quite difficult to maintain our existing electricity generation capacity without nuclear.
  
• Renewables have a significant role in several forms of energy, especially at local level.
  
• Combined heat and power (CHP) should be encouraged for local schemes (industries, large businesses, hospitals, schools etc).
  
• Incentives and disincentives encouraging efficient energy use should be strengthened.

The UK government will do whatever is necessary
to continue to create the illusion of economic
growth, even as the economy starts falling to
pieces  -hence all the silly nonsense about
additional runways and surges in air travel over
the next 30 years.

The real solutions to Britain's problems are
politically unacceptable, since they amount to
an admission that almost everything that has
been done over the past 40 years or so has been
wrong, going right back to the closure and
ripping up of much of the rail system in the
1960s.

The real amswer to most of the problems that
bedevil the UK (and the world) is abandonment
of GDP and the adoption of the Genuine
Progress Index. Well the chance of that
happening is about zero.

Clearly a rapid power down, whereby people live
and work within their own community and food
is produced as close as possible to the
communituy will be necessary. I cannot for the
life of me see politicians who are committed
to globalisation suddenly turning round and
saying: "Sorry folks, we got it all wrong.
We need local manufacture, local employment,
local small scale markets, local everything."

What is far more likely is that the UK
government will continue to fiddle while Rome
burns, attempting to secure oil and natural
gas import deals with whoever they can, for
as long as possible, maybe getting engaged
in a new military fiasco, in order to delay the
dreaded day when the all the chickens come home
to roost.

If the UK government really wanted to solve the
enregy crisis it would commence with a public
education campaign pointing out that London is
likely to be under water in a few decades and
that a gradual shut of the consumer society
[throughout the world, with Britain leading the
way] is necessary to prevent it. It would remove
the annual road tax on vehicles under 800cc and
raise it to punative levels on over 1500cc
vehicles. It would subsidise bicycles and
bicycle spare parts. It would make road systems
friendly to bicycles and unfriendly to cars. It
would revitalise the rail system with
lightweight, slow-moving railstock.
It would recognise that speed is not the answer,
but is the problem. It would reintroduced
trade restrictions. It would ensure that all new
buildings are of solar design and as thermally
effcinet as possible.

Well, we can be pretty sure none of it will
happen and Britain will continue to head straight
off the cliff, just as New Zealand is.  

BIG TOPIC CHANGE!

Jay Hanson, Reg Morrision, author of "Spirit in the Gene", and ANGRYCHIMP are engaging in a totally mind-stunning debate on instinctive conspiracies & open conspiracies.

If you have not joined the Yahoo forum  DIEOFF_Q&A,  NOW IS THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans SMarter than Yeast?

Bush and Blair agreed to war before Security council meeting, irrespective of WMD - NY times reports

Once upon a time I was a civil servant in the then Department of the Environment, and I 'ran' the public consultation on the THORP plant at Sellafield, which had some 15000 responses, if memory serves. Most were of the pre-packaged postcard type, as supplied by Greenpeace, but many were not. Every submission was read by a civil servant; all the substantial responses were incorporated into advice given to the minister responsible (John Gummer). In particular, any cogently argued perspective HAD to be addressed in advice to the minister. Now  the situation here is slightly different, in that the legal constraints were much more significant (if, eg, Greenpeace could show that the minister had not taken account of a significant argument, the decision to proceed would be subject to revision at a judicial review. I think there was a review in any case, but the government won because it could show that it had considered all arguments).

I would recommend putting together a significant and thorough group response from TOD:UK, before the deadline goes in. I would expect the main elements to be incorporated into briefing to the relevant minister - even if the government goes against what we think to be wise. Someone would need to coordinate it, of course - Chris?

The question of judicial review is an interesting one. I would have thought that there was a strong case for taking the government's position on new runways to court, as I think the absence of consideration of Peak Oil is materially negligent.

Well quite clearly fuel price does not. One pound
a litre does not deter petrol heads. Will two
pounds a litre? Or three pounds a litre? Obviously
the entire economy would fall over if that level of
pricing were to be achived rapidly. But it's coming
anyway. As is an economic catastrophe, as Britain's
oil and gas fields run down and more energy has to
be purchased from overseas, eventually causing a
monstrous blowout in the nation's debt.

The choice is betweeen a soft landing and a hard
landing. Politicians notoriously delay hard
decisions in the hope that they can retire before
the SHTF. They notoriously opt for a hard landing
later, rather than adopt unpopular measures now.

The fact is, Britian needs to undergo a culture
change so dramatic that most Britons are clearly
not prepared to accept it yet. As long as the
matra of economic growth prevails, there really
is little long term hope. As long as the love
affair with travel is allowed to continue,
Britain's future will continue to be sacrificed.  

Land will be lost at an ever increasing rate,
as the meltdown of Arctic and Antartic glaciers
accelerates. The frequency and extent of storm
damage will increase, there will be more droughts,
more water restrictions, more ill health. Eventaully
the oil-based food system will collapse ..... all
so that people can continue to drive big cars and
take package holidays for just that little bit
longer instead of adjusting their lifestyles now.

It's all too ridiculous for words.

Such tariffs have been used elsewhere but, for some reason, UK seems rather stuck with a system whereby profligate consumption is rewarded by lower rates for heavy users whereas small user households are effectively penalised by high standing charges and / or higher unit charges.

Offgem have issued a paper opposing the above committee's tariff suggestions as they maintain 'Lifeline' tariffs might undermine investment in the industry.  My view is that such tariffs represent 'low hanging fruit' in that they could precipitate a major change in consumer behaviour simply by what is effectively a computer / billing change.  In other words no time consuming and expensive infrastructure changes would be required to start to influence consumption of the more profligate energy consumers.  Incidentally such tariffs could be applied to water too once a critical mass have water meters.

Relevant section (5.26) of the report is located here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/21/2108.htm#a30

The most likely solution for Great Britain is to make maximum investment into infrastructure to harvest the vast wind resource.
Wind has been held as insufficient due to the intermittent nature.

I will suggest a solution to this as the offshore potential is large enough to cover all the electricity need in Europe. In Norway is research going on to utilize anchored floating wind turbines and then is the production potential enormous.A small part of the North Sea can cover all electricity needs in Europe. Areas with shallow enough water to make fixed structures feasible is limited compared to the vast areas with water depth between 100 and 500m.

When the production is intermittent then is the solution to have a demand which can follow the variation in wind production without problems.
We have to create a new industry which can produce some useful products with storage possibilities.
Among possible useful product is HYDROGEN , METHANOL and DME.
As we move over to the down slope of Hubberts curve are those products desperately needed as the main problem will be lack of liquid fuels rater han electricity.
When hydrogen from electrolyzis is combined with a carbon source is it possible to produce Methanol, DME or other products.

Methanol is the only liquid fuel which is useable both in otto and diesel egines as well as fuel cells.
DME is the ideal fuel for diesel engines. DME is gaseous and easier to store than hydrogen .
Hydrogen is the ideal fuel for fuel cells and useable in otto engines.

The most economically carbon source without new CO2 emissions is biomass as it contains some hydrogen as well.The partial oxidation gasification process (which also can use the oxygen from the electrolyzis) combined with added hydrogen has the potential to produce almost 4 times more liquid fuel than the Ethanol fermation process.

Great Britain is low on biomass recourses but 20% or more of demanded liquid fuel may be possible.
A a greater expence it is possible to produce more liquid fuel by utilizing CO2 from flue gas or even athmospheric CO2 if enough electricity is availiable.

When wind availability is above expected level is hydrogen and oxygen produced for storage in addition to delivery to attached liquid fuel plants.
When wind availability is below expected level and demand exeeds production, then it is possible to quickly switch off some or all electrolyze facilities without harming the equipment and the rest of the plants can operate from stored hydrogen and oxygen for a limited time depending of storage capacity installed.

The benefits from this is then:
1
Possibility to phase in as much wind generated energy as desire,  wind      recourses and investment money allows.
2
Increased security and availability as a large part (and CO2 free) of liquid fuel amount is produced at home.
3
A possibility to fulfill peak electricity demand by shutting down heavy users which can cope with it, without having to idling and starting gas powered backup plants.
4
A significant CO2 emission reduction by reduction of conventional fuels as well as
a higher electricity generation from a CO2 free source.

A solution which generates the necessary electricity combined with production of desperately needed fuel as well as adressing the problem of peak demand and the CO2 problem has to be persued.

Todays generating capability is still there and what is mentioned abowe can be phased in gradually to cover new demand and replacing old production when desired.

it is a good possibility when anchored wind turbines are ready then is the production cost lower or level with gas fired power plants. The startup investment cost is much higher but then is the fuel free. A future low gas price scenario is very unlikelly, the price will rise perhaps very much and the security regarding delivery may be questioned.

A complete new super grid presumeabely HVDC which takes DC close to end users and all the way to the electrolyzers is probably a good idea.

Not sure if anyone thought about this one yet, but I don't think you actually can run a national electricity grid without fossil fuels.

Why not?

AC electricity networks connect Production to Demand. And since you can't store any AC on the network cables, Production must AT ANY TIME equal Demand.

Now how is this managed?
There is a System Operator in the country that monitors the network frequency : if the frequency looks like it's going to go below the Norm, this means Demand is getting bigger than Production; so they regulate Production up. And vice versa.
You need to continuously steer Production to keep exactly in pace with Demand.

Things to know about Demand :
- you can't actually steer it - not for the residential sector anyway.

Things to know about different types of Production :

• Wind energy is only available when there is some wind (but not too much). Unfortunately this is not always the same time as when you need it.
  
• Solar : same thing, but sunlight.

- Nuclear plants provide a steady baseload to the net. They have a good deal of capacity, but are not meant for regulating power. They react slowly.

I'd like to see the first study that shows how to keep a national network from collapsing, if all you get is nuclear and renewable to work with for balancing.

If you know, please enlighten me...