Tony Blair on the Energy Challange
Posted by Chris Vernon on July 3, 2006 - 5:42pm in The Oil Drum: Europe
On Tuesday 27 June 2006 Prime Minister Tony Blair met with a selection of magazine editors for a special question and answer session in the State Dining Room of Number 10. This particular question and more specifically Blair's answer disserves far more exposure that the media seems to have given it (Hat tip Postman Patel).
Question:
I would focus on my title of European business, but I am aware that all of the energy provision of Rotterdam city is from a decentralised source, and 50% of Denmark's energy is from a decentralised source. Why is the government moving towards a nuclear solution for Britain's energy production when there is ample evidence to suggest that the challenge of global warming and fossil fuel shortages can be better met through a decentralised energy production infrastructure embracing renewable fuels and energy sources?Tony Blair:
Well I think the answer to that is you are going to have to do everything if you want to deal with the energy security issues and climate change. But when we publish the Energy Review it will not simply focus on nuclear, it will focus on renewables and a big expansion of renewables, energy efficiency, there is combined heat and power which of course is very much the solution in Denmark.There are a whole series of things that we will be focusing on, but there is a simple stark fact that I would just like to put in front of people, which is we are going to go over the next 15 or 20 years to a situation where: one, the 20% that we get of our electricity from nuclear is going to decline to virtually zero; and two, where we are going to go from being 80 or 90% self-sufficient in oil and gas, to 80 or 90% importing it.
And I think what that means is if we want to safeguard our energy supply, as well as deal with climate change, we have got to put everything in the mix and have a balanced policy. And I am talking about whether we replace the existing nuclear power component of our electricity, but if we are not going to replace it we are going to have to, well what is going to happen on renewables is going to have to be absolutely massive.
New nuclear build can't be expected to do any more than replace the decommissioned fleet (even that's is probably too optimistic within the 15-20 year time frame) yet here we have the Prime Minister talking of the rapid shift to imported oil and gas. The very fact he's mentioned it suggests it's a concern.
Critical will be the demand side response - will actions be taken to reduce our electricity demand by a third within a decade? Will 20mpg cars still be marketed in the UK in 2010? Also what new policies will be needed to get to the aspirational target of 20% electricity supply from renewables by 2020?
Full transcript available here: Q and A with The British Society of Magazine Editors
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (12)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (16)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (16)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (13)
- November 2007 (16)
- October 2007 (22)
- September 2007 (8)
- August 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (16)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (7)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (12)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (15)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (10)
- April 2006 (9)
- March 2006 (13)
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
It does open up an angle around what renewables/microgen costs in UK compared to say the US. I've been doing some research and making a few purchases.
Eg. I bought an 80 watt solar panel recently in the UK at a cost around £500 with controller. Equivalent panel in the US - $450. So twice the price.
On Microturbines, I was quoted £850 to deliver (not install) an Air-X 400 watt wind machine. I was able to purchase an identical machine in the US for $550. So three times the price. Who's snouts are in this trough?
There seem to be a hell of a lot of Quangos, Trusts, Snake Oil Salesmen and general busybodies on the UK renewables scene. Perhaps if some of the resources that are being used up on nice dinners, 'conferences' and 'workshops' were actually turned towards what is needed, fast - HARDWARE - then we might see things begin to move.
That said, the proposals to reduce the Planning Obstacles to Microwind machines seem like a useful step in the right direction.
I see it as one of the 2 practical ways that an "Average bod" can generate in a domestic environment. (The other being Solar). Conservation and insulation are very important, but can only go so far.
To that end, I have bought a 300 Watt turbine (Made in China - where else..) and installed it last week in my back garden - on a 6 metre pole.
For the tecchies amongst you, it pushes out 3-phase AC which is rectified into 12vDC and charges 2 large 110Ah Leisure Batteries.
These in turn provide current to a 600w(max) inverter and that feeds my Deep-Freeze and some sockets for low-current devices such as phone chargers, laptops etc.
The blurb on the inverter says that it is not suitable for flourescent tubes (due to the high initial 'kick' of induction I imagine) but I am going to do some trials with low-energy bulbs to see what the threshold is.
The batteries store about enough charge for 3 days of 'no-wind' on my current setup (pun intended). I live on the South Coast - so I hope to avoid too much 'no-wind'...
It has only been up for about 10 days, and I have already sparked a lot of interest / debate from the neghbours and friends about the merit of turbines such as mine.
Mostly positive - I must say, and a number of people have asked "Do you think I could have one?"
This has set me and my colleague thinking about doing a sales & installation service (bearing in mind the point made by Oily Bill above) - Delivery only is not an option unless you enjoy & understand a reasonable amount of electrical & construction DIY.
As to cost (and I will be honest here) the kits can be bought for a little over 400 pounds on eBay (incl P&P) and you must add another 100 for batteries and probably another 50 on small items such as paint, cable, connectors and fixings.
Adding in an installation charge of about 300 pounds, we hope to market them for about 850 pounds fully installed.
This is not so much a sales pitch, as to give a reference to the costs given above by OB.
I have seen firms asking 3000 pounds for a 400W turbine fully installed! I do think their turbine looks quite attractive (and has an imaginitive name) - but way above a decent benchmark price. Hence why I investigated doing my own!
Finally - the planning point. I wrote to my local Authority (West Dorset) asking if I needed planning permission. They said "Send us 20 quid - and we'll tell you". True!
So I sent my money in and they repied with a letter that I DO NOT require planning permission. It is deemed to be a temporary structure, it is within my boundaries and they are adopting a structure plan which encourages SSEG.
Check with your own local authority, but I think most of this comes from Mr Prescott's office.
Again using the mid-point of the 80 to 90% import proportion referred to in the transcript i.e. 85%, UK would need to import 4.3m boe/d by 2023. At current $74/bbl oil price and £1 = $1.84 indicated UK foreign currency required for such imports is £63bn pa; at $100/boe cost rises to £85bn pa. In practice import costs may well be even higher as much of UK future gas imports will need to be via LNG and cost per boe is likely to be higher than that of oil given additional costs and energy losses of handling LNG. These estimates only cover oil and gas imports; they exclude trade deficit in other goods and services. Which foreign Gov'ts / investors are going to lend UK plc currency on such a scale?
Considering recent UK trade deficit has been running at around £36bn pa without a significant amount of energy imports these numbers should be of great concern to politicians and economists. These huge import costs are not unrealistic - they are based on Government's own statements as to the portion of oil / gas imports will need to provide should current consumption trends be maintained.
I'm not an economist but it continues to surprise me just how easily such numbers can be derived from Gov't energy forcasts...and just how little coverage the matter receives in the MSM. 17.5 years is not a long time in energy infrastructure timescales, in fact it's pretty close to 'tomorrow'. IMO there will come a time, and long before 2023, when Gov't and consumers will have to face up to the demand rather than the supply side of the equation.
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'.
Getting Around: a folding bicycle would be good given that public transport is even now terrible and may be even more unreliable then. If you're not too fit, an electrically-assisted bike may be worth considering - or, eh, maybe not;
Accommodation: best within walking (or cycling) distance of the venue for your favourite sport;
Items to Bring: Clothing - with the British weather an umbrella is always a good idea, but with global warming it may by then be 40C in July/August, or 10C if the Gulf Stream packs up, so a wide selection is the best option; a torch, just in case the lights in your hotel go out, often, and for a long time; good shoes/trainers, for all the walking; extra cash (best currency is anyone's guess, maybe roubles) in case your return transport is delayed (ever tried travelling by cargo ship?); plenty of non-perishable food, such as apples, nuts, Mars bars, etc.; finally, a good pair of binoculars, preferably of the night-vision variety for unlit-floodlit events.
On a serious note, the 2012 Olympics might be the last in the present over-hyped, over-blown form. A silver lining ...
This isn't dismissive Keynesian doctrine. It's our personal job-house(s)-car(s)-mobile-mp3-DVD-easyholidays-easyfood infotainment bubble.
As long as all, or most, of these are kept available to us NOW, who gives a toss?
Energy prices rising very sharply with widespread job losses (South East), may prompt government into actually DOING something, but it may not happen before the next election...
so it will be left out of sight until TSHTF.
such as heatpump system, which can reduce electricity cost due to single phase operation with no need for addition enery saving up to compared with strandard eletrical central heating. it generate the heat from ground or air by refridge theory,and produce enery efficient central heating, by unparalleled operation silence with both indoor and outdoor appliances.
it is very popular in other EU countries and North America. i think that we should catch up this new technology as well.