Martin,

I'm not saying that mass civil disturbance of the sort you are describing is impossible. It's absolutely possible, in the same sort of way that "climate disruption" is possible. it's an extreme outcome.

You may argue "we're closer than you might think" but then we're into the same sort of argument you get from an AGW alarmists when they say that extreme weather is "closer than you might think".

The mirror images of AGW theory and what I'd call Economically Triggered Societal Breakdown theory is stark, if you can stand back from the arguments for a second. In both cases, there is a political goal. In both, a stark and apocalyptic outcome if we don't act soon. In both, society sits around just waiting for this thing to happen and doesn't adapt in time. In both, we have appeals to "saving" something. They both rely heavily on science. Both sides are vocalised by a non-scientific minority who constantly mis-represent the science. Both sides suspect and accuse conspiracy.

I don't believe the stakes really aren't that high. I vote against ALL alarmism.

Mike, I take your points, but I think the reality is that on the very first instance of capacity-induced blackouts, there will be so much of a backlash that something will be done at any cost.

In some ways (and I think some people here sense it) - the ONLY way for the govt to backtrack from its green nonsense if for it to be commanded to do so by an unruly electorate.

We all actually need a few days of blackouts to wake everybody up.

And I believe this is what will happen sometime in the next few years - it won't be a total breakdown scenario, but it'll be enough of a taster.

Yes, the lead time will make it much more expensive to do it then than it would if we started now, because they'd have to do it more quickly, and cover the gap by buying in capacity from abroad.

Hopefully, our government has enough sense to keep the power stations that must be closed according to EU diktat in a state whereby they could be brought back to life again if necessary

And that's weird. Forget the riots in London (a mild metropolitan inconvenience at best) - do people remember the truckers dispute 8 or 9 years ago? Rolling roadblocks, refinery blockades, no petrol, supermarkets cleared out, medical staff unable to get to work.

Have politicians such a short memory?

I recall the power cuts in the 70s, the 3-day week etc. Back then, my dad got paid in pound notes in an envelope, so if the power was out, who cared. It was sort of exciting in a way. but fast forward 40 years and few of us ever see the money in our banks. We pay electronically, we communicate electronically, we do everything electronically.

Life will actually grind to a halt when the ATM network goes off.

I don't mind debating AGW alarmism, so long as there is debate. It's an important part of life to think the worst and then decide what actions to curb it are sensible. The trouble with AGW is they're not really thinking about it. They're panicking and throwing money at the issue. Worse, they're not even succeeding in cutting CO2, ony reducing our generation security and out wild landscape. Lose, lose.

The worst can happen and maybe we're due serious civil unrest but equally problems like a power shortage can be solved with cash. I can even see certain businesses planning to make a profit by offering to cut production to ease power shortages. I also suspect the generators could get a mothballed plant back on a lot faster if the incentive is good enough.

More serious problems might result from cascade effects. Silly things like a business not shutting down because a key person can't be contacted to ok it. A really bad flu season (not a nightmare version, just the sort we saw in 1989/90) could really screw up production and decision making.

As yet they still haven't started the big push for new capacity - gas, coal or nuclear - so the time between the start of low capacity and a return to decent capacity pushes further into the future. In some ways this is not a bad thing because it might be the trigger to get on with fracking to make gas fired power stations finacially viable again.

Theoretically we can't prevent the closure of the old coal stations because the generators are running them flat out because a) coal is really cheap at the moment and b) they aren't treating them gently because they're going to close. In other words they're knackered.

The fuel crisis was instructive. It shows that panic can create problems you wouldn't have if supply was unthreatened.

@Martin A

I used to have a great view of Didcot power station from my office window. If I still lived there, I think I'd be slightly sad to see it go.

Their website says:

Didcot A could generate 2,000MW of electricity - enough power to meet the needs of some 2 million households.

Didcot power station was something of a landmark in South Oxfordshire, though some people probably thought it spoilt the view. But I wonder how many wind turbines, and how many spoilt views, we'd need to replace it?

Yes: Didcot B (the gas-fired bit) is still running. But the 2 million households bit applied to Didcot A alone.

Dung, nope, they really are stupid. I know nothing about banking but I could see that they'd gone bonkers lending to people who could afford the mortgages on buildings that weren't worth what they paid for them. Where were the government ministers saying 'hang on chaps, are you sure you're not over extending?'

There really are very few evil masterminds. Power shortages will ruin us with a mixture of ignorance, well meaning fiddling and opportunistc greed. Even the bankers have mostly lost the taste for gambling on failure. If they manufacture another catastrophe they might end up richer but shorter or at the very least gender neutral.