An interesting exercise............
Think back as far as you can, - round pinned plugs in the UK would be good, and picture where you were living at the time, and how many power sockets there were in each room.
Now think of any house built in the last few years and how many power sockets there are, yet there will still be adaptors and extensions.
Just a simple way of demonstrating how our power usage has increased.
How many reading this regularly leave TVs etc. on standby? Switch off the TVs etc. instead and a large power station could be taken off line.
In other words if we want to continue our present lifestyle, then we need, firstly, to economise in a major way as regards our power usage, - it's quite amazing the reduction that will result from not using standby, low energy lightbulbs, better insulation, etc., etc., but that is still unlikely to be enough.
Beyond that we then need to accept that the power we still will be consuming leads to certain consequences, all expensive.
Firstly, we've several hundred years' supply left in the UK of deep mined, high quality coal, but we no longer have a deep mined coal industry, so would have to spend several £b restarting that industry, - unfortunately it's incredibly expensive to re-open abandoned pits,- currently it's regarded as uneconomic. Coal from Australia etc. ?, - aye weel, if we're worried about the environmental implication of flying in broccolli from Bolivia .....................
There's plenty of "clean" coal burning technologies now mature, but, guess what?, they cost a lot more than the coal fired power stations of the 1950s, - think along the lines of double (in real terms).
Nuclear is an option, but are we prepared to leave the clean up legacy to future generations?, not least the cost. Never mind the fact that we're now in the position in the UK where we no longer have the expertise in this country to design and build a new generation of nuclear power stations, so we'd be at the mercy of major US contractors.
Oil?, - we're already back to being a net importer!
Gas?, - I shudder to think of how many trillions and trillions of cubic feet that were flared (burnt) back in the 60s and 70s and into the 80s out on the oil production rigs, before folk started thinking, - "Hey, if we take this on shore, clean it up, we can use it to generate power!"........... - the "dash to gas" under privatisation of the electricity industry in the UK.(There's a school of opinion, with which, as a chemical engineer I have lot of sympathy, that the daftest possible thing to do with gas is to burn it to produce electricity, as opposed to regarding it as an invaluable feedstock for the chemical industry .............)
But now we're a net importer of gas. Anyone fancy relying on Russia and various parts of the former USSR to keep our lights burning over the next few decades
And there's wind and tidal power. Any major tidal scheme is going to have a tremendous environmental impact, but might just be one way out of the present situation, given acceptance of the cost and environmental implications
Wind energy's great but don't let the enthusiasts hide the fact that there has to a backup source for the times when the wind either isn't blowing or is blowing too hard (the wind turbines have to be shut down, otherwise there's major risk of damage), and that reserve has to be what's called "spinning reserve", i.e. power stations that are poised to supply electricity with only a couple of hours warning maximum, - the "spinning" bit comes from the fact that the the turbines and generators are actually spinning on a tick over basis, - BTW there's a complication here that it takes several days to bring a coal fired power station up to "spinning reserve" status. And, guess what, "spinning reserve" comes with a cost !!
Many of the best areas for wind power generation, on-shore and off-shore, are in remote areas, which raises the question of how to transfer that power to where it's needed, which is where I come back to the question which sparked off this
![[rant]](./images/smilies/rant.gif "Rant")
, the pylons.
But that's no problem as long as we're prepared to accept the massive cost of putting the transmission lines underground, and it's not just the initial installation cost, - it's the maintenance cost. If there's a fault above ground, access is straightforward, - underground is something else again.
BTW, in the main, forget storage of wind generated power for the moment, - it's a distinct possibility in a few decades, but, with one exception, the technologies are only just beginning to develop.
The exception is pumped storage, - wind power installations are run flat out regardless of demand, and the excess power used to pump water from a low level to a high level reservoir. When the wind is too low or too high, the stored water is then used in a hydropower mode to generate power, but the overal efficiency is greatly decreased, i.e. , again, it costs!! (There are currently a number of highly successful hydroelectric power stations that make use of pumped storage.)
Hydroelectric power? The majority of the major possible schemes in the UK were built in the decades immediately after WWII. There still is some potential, but at major environmental cost.
Solar power? Ask me again, if I'm still about, in 25 years ...........
I hold no brief for any particular solution, but I do argue strongly that this is a perfect example of the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch"
If we want the life style that we have, then even with extensive energy saving measures, and those themselves carry a major initial cost, then we need to be aware of the fact that, whatever is chosen as the national strategy (or is that an oxymoron in the UK
![[5 cups]](./images/smilies/sm-5cups.gif "[5 cups]")
) there will be substantial costs that will naturally be reflected in the cost we pay per kW.........
BTW, were the decision taken today, it would easily be 10 years, possibly nearer 15 years before a new nuclear power station was up and running.
Given the extensive planning issues involved, not that much less for a new, economically sized coal fired station, say a minimum of 8 years for a 5,400 MW station (6 x 900 MW units). Interesting little story here, - the UK used to be at the forefront of coal fired technology, witness the two stations in the UK, consisting of 6 x 660MW units, Ferrybridge and I forget the other.
In the late 70s/early 80s there was a well developed programme to develop a 900MW unit, initiated by the CEGB along with Scottish partners, - there's still economy of scale in moving up from 660MW to 900MW ...... but privatisation knocked that on the head, - no central R&D, never mind the destruction of the deep mined coal industry, but let's not get into that
As you'll appreciate, I have strong opinions on the subject, but the strongest of all is that, whichever way the UK chooses to go, there are costs, sometimes direct in terms of £, sometimes short term, sometimes long term, sometimes indirect in terms of the effect on the scenery in Scotland, - there could be an expensive consequence here of film makers no longer using the Highlands. OK, it can be argued that there will be plenty beautiful glens not disfigured by lines of giant pylons, but those glens will be much more remote and not so easy to access from main roads ...........
TANSTAAFL !! (Robert A. Heinlein, 1966, "
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress")
![[soapbox]](./images/smilies/soapbox.gif "SoapBox")
David
![[woohoo]](./images/smilies/woohoo.gif "[woohoo]"){kind=small}
) as much more as buried cables on land, never mind, believe it or not, easier to maintain, - there's over a century of expertise from the early days of sub-sea telegram cable links, and a whole major industry out there today involved in the maintenance of sub-sea fibre optic cables, via which many of you will be reading this !!