Discussion > When the lights go out
Why was there talk of turning off air-conditioners and dressing down if there was enough spare capacity?
Missy
Good question, Missy.
Just guessing (and without any opinion whatever on how much spare capacity Japan had):
- After the earthquake there was all sorts of mayhem, including high voltage power lines down. I'd guess this could have affected availability of power in some areas especially if some fossil fuel power stations lost their connections to the grid, like Fukushima NPS did.
- If you have a number of mothballed power stations, it's unlikely you'd have a plan for dealing with starting them all up at one go under emergency conditions. (After all, the Japanese did not even seem to have a plan for dealing with a nuclear plant that had lost its external and internal power supplies, let alone a couple of simultaneous meltdowns and fuel storage ponds boiling dry. ) Even if you did have such a plan, availability of trained engineering staff would be an issue.
- I imagine that starting up a mothballed thermal power plant after an earthquake would involve some days of testing, rather than just turning the key and hoping that nothing was broken.
When HP eventually emerges, clinically clean, from the shower, perhaps he could comment on my speculations.
Martin A
Booker has a remarkable article in the Sunday Telegraph this morning assuring us that the lights are not going to go out: we do not, it seems, face major power outages after all. The reason, he says, is that the Government has developed a "secret weapon", known as STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) that will enable the National Grid to call on a huge network of standby diesel generators to maintain power supplies. It will, of course, be hugely expensive and do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
This would appear to be a very important development: does anyone know anything about it? (Richard North has more about it here.)
Robin Guenier
The STOR may have evolved from changes made to the list of businesses on secure supplies back in Brown's era. Any that didn't make the list were advised to get generating capacity of their own. This stuff was being discussed as part of the plans for pandemics (backwards of 2009) but there may have been awareness of energy shortfalls as part of the mindset. I'd bet even smart meters are part of plans to make do with less spare capacity. Of course it all makes the system very complicated and much more likely to go wrong when you need it most.
Also, while there are plans for STOR, it's not a given that enough companies will sign up to it, for it to work. There always were companies that bought cheaper electricity on the agreement that in a shortfall they'd stop production. The company I worked for had such a contract (on gas and electricity) but it didn't stop them throwing in the towel and moving to China and the US for cheaper energy. Some of those companies may have decided to procure their own generating capacity and in the past the company I worked for had an oil fired power station but it was too expensive to keep as a 'just in case' backup. It all had to be maintained, kept secure and you hoped like heck it would work when you needed it. This plan where companies will tender for the opportunity to supply the grid with power is a bit dodgy. If a company has installed generating capacity to protect itself from power cuts, how likely are they to have much to spare for the grid and will they risk the system they got the generators for (eg banking computer) to get extra money? Those companies will have to think hard about the extra money they'll make from the deal concentrating on the cost of the diesal or oil at the moment of crisis. Oil in particular is much more expensive in winter when powercuts are most likey and diesal could rocket if there were energy shortages. If for some reason the signed up, part time generators can't supply at an important moment will they suffer financial penalties that will be greater than the benefits and are they confident that their staff and equipment can deliver? I think it might be a little like the Green Deal, everyone enthusiastic about it until they actually consider their own circumstances and realise it's all a potential nightmare that will ultimately cost money. The big users will still agree to shut off in an emergency but they have no choice, if the power goes they're off anyway, they might as well make a buck on it.
The grid also needs to be certain about the companies they sign up. I can see unscrupulous people creating companies specifically to benefit from this but when the time comes to supply they'll be elsewhere counting the cash. Check contracts where the signature is M. Afia or T Ali Ban.
TinyCO2
I think it will all depend how close we come to the edge, how soon or if manufacturing picks up and how often shortfalls occur.
TinyCO2
Thanks Tiny. There are some interesting comments on the Booker/North articles here. Note especially PeterMG. Any comments?
Robin Guenier
Power 'cuts' won't pose as many insurmountable difficulties so much as variable power PRICING will. I reckon we will be advised in advance of where and when power will be cut, giving you the opportunity to prepare in advance, but no-one can cope effectively with the financial problems that variable costing will introduce - you can't sit by the meter ready to flick off the heating when it's priced outside your ability to pay. Given that the STOR program may have unforseen difficulties then the only way to reduce demand is either remove it or price it out of reach - and I know what option Government will use.
Dave_G
The Booker article pointed out that some (all?) the agreements were based on paying the emergency suppliers 8 times the current cost of electricity which is even worse than offshore wind power!
The government totally screws up its energy policy (consecutive governments which included all three supposedly main parties) and their solution is to pay for the consequences by spraying more of our money around. I suppose it is no surprise that I have high blood pressure :(
Dung
Missy
Why was there talk of turning off air-conditioners and dressing down if there was enough spare capacity?
I've no idea of the reliability of the source here, but it says
"Japan's electricity utilities bought 4.24m tonnes of coal in May - 22% more year on year - as the return of coal-fired plants continues to pushes imports above 2012 levels, latest data from the utilities shows."That implies (22% of 4.24 million times 12) that Japan has had to increase coal imports by about 11.2 million tonnes per annum. That coal will have to be mined and the bulk tankerage arranged before it can be delivered. It's a bit more complex and time consuming than ringing up the coal merchant and asking for a couple more bags to be dropped off.
Martin A
I agree, re-starting an idle or mothballed plant requires more than turning the key and pressing the starter button. I've no idea what is actually involved, but with high pressure and high temperature steam involved, there is certain to be checking and testing of the various systems before lift off. Plus the staffing, of course.
Plumbing. When I left the UK in 1989, mains pressure hot water systems were prohibited. I've no idea whether that is still the case. Historically there were good reasons for that. In poorly designed and maintained systems, heating water at mains pressure can result in back flow from the hot tank into the mains, or boiler explosions. My point is that everywhere else in the world apart from the UK seems to have been able to design systems which work reliably at mains pressure. This is a fact I am reminded of every time I visit my otherwise dearly beloved brother in Cambridge, and it always leads to a lively discussion.
Hector Pascal
Richard North has more this morning about what he terms "The Back-Up Bonanza", detailing the businesses being created to provide diesel-powered capacity to overcome the problem of renewable intermittency. TinyCO2 has pointed out re STOR that "it's not a given that enough companies will sign up to it for it to work". Maybe - but it seems that's a view based on the original STOR concept. But, if North's analysis is right, what's now happening is not so much about utilising spare standby capacity that organisations may have established to protect themselves from power cuts, as new capacity being created for the sole purpose of providing power back-up. This, as North points out, is a major change in the STOR concept. And the reason, of course, is that there are huge profits to be made: it seems around eight times the industrial tariff will be paid. All at the consumer's expense.
BTW Autonomous Mind makes an interesting comment:
... over on the Bishop Hill blog, Andrew Montford points to a conclusion that no fossil fuels are subsidised in the UK, in rebuttal to the imbecilic climate alarmist mouthpiece, Bob Ward. However, STOR clearly shows there is subsidy being made available for diesel powered electricity generation at peak times – albeit to back up virtually useless wind power.
Robin Guenier
Missy,
Regarding post-earthquake/tsunami Japanese electricity supply and demand, they have a very large increase in demand in the summer months. I think this is attributable to the seriously unpleasant heat and humidity which requires a lot of air-conditioning during these months. This is a relatively recent demand increase (since the 1960's), presumably due to increasing wealth and affordability.
Look at page 23 in this document (page 23 of the original document numbering)
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/useful/pdf-3/11i_full-e.pdf
If they had, until 2011, sufficient supply for the summer months then it would mean they had excess capacity for all other purposes during the rest of the year. I recall reading some years ago that enduring the summer heat/humidity was something of a annual event. I would guess that they have gone back to that situation until sufficient extra supply can be brought on-line.
michael hart
Hector P: we put in an unvented, mains-fed HW tank in 1988, supplied by a UK manufacturer - no problem with legality. However the plumber took some persuading - maybe the idea that they were "prohibited" was another ploy from the well-known Book of Builders' Excuses, Plumbing Section?
mikeh
My point is that everywhere else in the world apart from the UK seems to have been able to design systems which work reliably at mains pressure. This is a fact I am reminded of every time I visit my otherwise dearly beloved brother in Cambridge, and it always leads to a lively discussion.
Jul 8, 2013 at 2:17 AM | Registered CommenterHector Pascal
I think it no longer applies.
And, for houses with a cold water tank (and hot water therefore at low pressure), pumps are available to drive showers. Your brother might be interested to know that. But more expense, more complexity and more to wear out or go wrong.
It was an out of date safety measure that made excellent sense in the 1890's - 1900's and was intended to make any sort of reverse flow from toilets or whatever back into the mains water system impossible. But inertia ensured its survival decades after it should have been forgotten about.
A bit like the UK regulation (still in place? It certainly was recently) requiring light switches in bathrooms to be operated by a pull-string.
Martin A
Could I please register a protest against doggerel - and not even witty doggerel - being posted here by people who I sincerely hope have good day jobs?
It is bad enough that CAGW alarmists hold "events" to promote things like "a new literature that cares about the planet." Excrable prose follows.
Please, let's not go down that path.
Just imagine what Jeeves would have said, faced with these bathtub-inspired ditties. Would he have suggested that they be pasted on the Internet for evermore?
And what would Bertie have done?
There is your answer. :)
johanna
Ouch.
Sorry Johanna, blame the bad poetry on a certain amout of depression having spent too much time in care homes and with the elderly. Given that most people seem to think powercuts are a bit jolly and not worth worrying about, the thread is about how it might be important to consider how it affects the less able. Care homes and domestic homes are not protected from powercuts and despite advice from the government, how many care homes will have organised a generator? Those places are monstrous now, what would they be like without power even for a few hours?
Will STOR protect us from powercuts? Maybe, but then perhaps the care homes will go dark anyway becuse they can't pay the energy bills. Many of them are on the edge now, they don't need a push.
We are already in a situation where generators are chasing lucrative markets that don't produce much electricity (wind). Where's the incentive to build base load? STOR could encourage them to come closer and closer to power cuts so that there's a justification for more diesal back up. They're effectively paying them to be less reliable. At what point would they start building new power stations?
For the big energy users, the financial rewards for joining STOR may never balance the normal running costs of energy and they'll just leave. Great for electricity capacity but that's the only benefit.
TinyCO2
TinyCO2, you hit the nail on the head when you said:
"If most things go smoothly then no problem but what other dominos are being set up to form a series of moderate irritations that could result in a major problem. Each toppling domino creates a wider spread of the crisis."
It is the anatomy of every catastrophe linked to human endeavour. Every time something really bad happens in human systems, it is not just a single failure - it is multiple failures, some very small, that cascade into a disaster. That is why the inquiries that are subsequently mounted are so unsatisfactory in their results. No one person or institution is completely responsible.
That is why proper risk management is not just about the big-ticket items. The O-rings that failed and directly caused the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster were just one piece of a larger jigsaw puzzle. A string of other failures of risk management meant that when these tiny, cheap components didn't perform, a catastrophe ensued. The same sort of debacle with regard to electricity supplies is spinning on the roulette wheel while politicians and bureaucrats play to the gallery.
johanna
I can see a point where the big generating companies will say "why the heck are we building or maintaing power stations, to run at minimal profit or even loss, when someone else is going to sweep in and pocket huge bonuses for supplying top ups to the system. Why don't WE build banks of diesal generators and run close to the edge 365 days of the year." Instead of shortages in the depths of winter we could face them all year round. Thus increasing the chances the unexpected will be the final straw.
TinyCO2
Tiny
You have been hitting the nail on the head right the way from your brilliant but frightening poem to your last post. The consequences you raise in your last post had not occurred to me but they are bang on!
Our ridiculous energy policy makes fossil fuel power stations unattractive, plants are mothballed because they are not profitable. The government comes up with STOR and is willing to pay 8 times the normal rate for electricity generated by "emergency" diesel generators. The next step has to be Yeo and Debben becoming involved in companies manufacturing diesel generators and in new start companies whose whole raison d'etre is the production of emergency electricity.
Dung
An article in the "i" a few days back claimed that some coal plants may get a stay of execution. Apparently each plant could apply for "capacity payment" subsidies to finance upgrades which would allow them to operate beyond 2020. Also it claims that the energy bill exempts 12 of the 18 coal plants from the "Emisssion Performance Standard".
If correct, this adds to the impression of panic behind the scenes over potential blackouts.
mikeh
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-power-companies/
British Energy Companies May Shut Down Power Plants To Receive Subsidies
cont.
Well we saw that coming.
TinyCO2
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/what-happens-if-the-lights-go-out-channel-4-drama-blackout-imagines-a-post-cyberattack-britain-8779207.html
A new drama will use mobile phone footage and amateur actors to show what might happen if the lights went out in Britain.
The Channel 4 show, called Blackout, will examine the effects of a devastating cyber-attack on the national grid.
It follows events over five days after a nationwide power cut, showing how the general public, the police and hospitals try to deal with it, and mixes scenes shot on phones and camcorders with footage recorded during actual power cuts and other emergencies.
[continued]
Blackout Monday 9th 9pm Channel 4. Bound to be a bit catastrophist but it might give those who dismiss a blackout caused by a shortage of infrastructure and generating capacity something to think about. The only review I've seen said it was good.
TinyCO2
Thanks for the heads-up on that Tiny. We need creative types to use their imaginations in the right directions. Even if far-fetched this sounds as if it will prompt the right kind of thinking afterwards.
Richard Drake
Even before watching tonight this little thought from yesterday followed by a remarkable column in the Telegraph Classical Music section read later in the day has made me want to start just one more BH Discussion: Climate, energy and imagination. Thanks Tiny!
Richard Drake
For a real-life version, there was a major blackout in Venezuela last week which affected about 70% of the country. All the expected problems arose: folk trapped in lifts and trains; no check-outs etc in stores; no fuel; etc..
The government blamed sabotage by right-wing terrorists. It seems everyone else blamed lack of investment in infrastructure, corrupt officialdom, etc..
mikeh
I'd forgotten about that. Victorian plumbing.
Can a drop of warm water make it out out of the shower head? The crowd at Wimbledon is silent: then a roar of triumph, it's a dribble!
I'll take mains pressure showers and drinking river water over bathing in my own dirt any day, thanks.
Also worth noting is Japan has enough spare generating capacity to replace the entire nuclear fleet with conventional thermal generation at the drop of an earthquake. How's the UK backup going?