UK Energy Gap - political causes?

[Endy0816]

We've touched on different aspects of this a few times now, I was just curious of what the politics were that led up to it.

[fiveworlds]

I have mentioned it a few times years ago. Basically the UK is a set of islands and they were overpopulated. Now the UK has massive constraints on the availability of land. Since all of it is owned by somebody. But also faces the depletion of its fossil fuels. As such the UK is in a bad position now where it may be unable to power all its homes. Then you have the problem where old coal powerplants need replacing and it is a question of the UK not having coal to power them. You have this mad situation that the largest city in Europe according to http://www.citymayors.com/features/euro_cities1.htmlis on an island.

Edited November 8, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Endy0816]

Yeah, I can understand the import issue. What I'm not understanding is why work didn't start on retrofitting or building new steady output plants(fossil fuels, nuclear) earlier.

 

Is importing electricity directly an option? I know tariffs would add to the costs, but not sure on what physical infrastructure exists.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Endy0816

[fiveworlds]

What I'm not understanding is why work didn't start on retrofitting or building new steady output plants(fossil fuels, nuclear) earlier.

 

Politics building new plants costs money. In order to raise money the government has to raise taxes which makes whatever party is in power unpopular and less likely to be voted in when the next election comes around. Unpopularity of decisions always hold sway over decisions made by governments. Raising taxes and telling people to have less kids is unpopular.

 

Is importing electricity directly an option? I know tariffs would add to the costs, but not sure on what physical infrastructure exists.

 

Yes but it is best avoiding becoming dependent on another country. Another problem being that while the UK could theoretically build windfarms off Ireland there is opposition to allowing the UK to do so. On account of windfarms being an eyesore and displacement of farmers who were probably in the IRA. Ireland does have its own electricity problem to worry about with electricity coming from dwindling turf supplies.

Edited November 8, 2015 by fiveworlds

[John Cuthber]

I have mentioned it a few times years ago. Basically the UK is a set of islands and they were overpopulated. Now the UK has massive constraints on the availability of land. Since all of it is owned by somebody. But also faces the depletion of its fossil fuels. As such the UK is in a bad position now where it may be unable to power all its homes. Then you have the problem where old coal powerplants need replacing and it is a question of the UK not having coal to power them. You have this mad situation that the largest city in Europe according to http://www.citymayors.com/features/euro_cities1.htmlis on an island.

The UK has about 200 years' worth of unused coal reserves. Using them without breaching carbon dioxide emissions agreements is the problem.

 

All cities are on islands; why don't you think London should be, and where else could you put it? Do you propose moving it to the Moon?

 

Electricity is traded directly with the rest of Europe; the infrastructure for that exists.

(At least most of) Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

The UK is building windfarms and solar power stations.

The UK's recent decision to get China to build a nuclear station here is bizarre.

Edited November 8, 2015 by John Cuthber

[fiveworlds]

The UK has about 200 years' worth of unused coal reserves. Using them without breaching carbon dioxide emissions agreements is the problem.

 

200 years still isn't that long it will just delay the problem a while.

 

All cities are on islands; why don't you think London should be, and where else could you put it? Do you propose moving it to the Moon?

 

If we could absolutely. We don't have the technology for that at the moment though. The main reason is supply and demand and it isn't just London the UK has other big cities too. London has a massive demand for goods and services. In order to supply this demand it has a large catchment area surrounding it providing the resources necessary for survival. However being on an island London is limited in the size of its catchment area. This leads to problems such as Japan being unable to feed itself.

 

 

Electricity is traded directly with the rest of Europe; the infrastructure for that exists.

(At least most of) Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

 

But it is your nearest neighbor.

 

The UK's recent decision to get China to build a nuclear station here is bizarre.

 

Not really they give you electricity if you give them food etc.

[John Cuthber]

"However being on an island London is limited in the size of its catchment area. This leads to problems such as Japan being unable to feed itself."

What?

That's wrong on more levels than farting in a lift.

 

Since the North and South of Ireland share a border, yes, it's our closest neighbour and I guess that electricity is transferred across that border.

So?

 

If you just look at the South of Ireland, and the rest of the UK then actually, France is nearer, and we trade power with the French

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing

 

None of that matters in the least.

 

 

"Not really they give you electricity if you give them food etc. "
No, what we do is give them jobs, money etc and then they may or may not decide to sell us power at a very high cost since the price is fixed in advance and they's almost certainly have some means to shut it down if they wanted.

 

That's bizarre, even before you consider that

(1) it's not clear that we need nuclear power- I think we might, but others disagree.

(2) there's no reason why we couldn't build it ourselves.

The UK built the world's first commercial power reactor.

 

 

"200 years still isn't that long it will just delay the problem a while."
That's an issue you need to raise with whoever first mentioned fossil fuels in this thread.

Also, it's quite a long while- it is, for example, possible that we will have fusion power in less than 200 years.Two hundred years ago, humanity was inventing dental floss and the Davy lamp, Things might alsochange in the next 200.

[Nouveau]

I have mentioned it a few times years ago. Basically the UK is a set of islands and they were overpopulated. Now the UK has massive constraints on the availability of land. Since all of it is owned by somebody. But also faces the depletion of its fossil fuels. As such the UK is in a bad position now where it may be unable to power all its homes. Then you have the problem where old coal powerplants need replacing and it is a question of the UK not having coal to power them. You have this mad situation that the largest city in Europe according to http://www.citymayors.com/features/euro_cities1.htmlis on an island.

 

 

Actually the United Kingdom is far from overpopulated and land distribution means that only 7% has been urbanised. This figure looks even smaller when you consider that 12.7% is covered by forests. Major population centers such as the London, Birmingham and Manchester metropolitan areas can give a false impression because of the greatly increased population density in such areas, however much of the UK has smaller concentrations consisting of towns and villages. Recent decades have seen movement in local populations away from rural areas towards the larger cities due in part to work pressures from closures of local industries and the demand for affordable housing, given restrictive rural planning regulations and higher demand and prices for countryside real estate.

 

Centralised larger population areas however haven't been the cause or even a problem in terms of the UK's energy situation. A failure to maintain or replace aging power stations and an under capitalisation in their renewables program have seriously added to the situation. There seems to a confused approach to energy production, over a decade ago renewables were being pushed to the fore as the strategic answer to the nations long-term future, even then this was viewed as a belated attempt to play catch up to the lead being shown by other European countries in making use of solar and wind technology. Nuclear energy was still being talked about but was never the most popular topic on the agenda. Fast forward to 2015 and already with several incidents of power stations having to either go offline or reduce capacity near panic stations have begun set in within some parts of Whitehall, after hushed tones talking up future blackouts out roles this new nuclear deal with the French and Chinese.

 

Currently their stated future strategy is for more renewable generation, more nuclear power, new generation of coal-fired stations with carbon capture and storage technology, improved energy efficiency programmes, pipelines to import gas from Norway and continental Europe, terminals for imported liquid natural gas and further gas storage and infrastructure improvements including major new electricity lines and a smart grid.

 

But this still all feels a bit last-minute, somewhat chaotic even, and doesn't signal any real commitment towards a long term adoption of nuclear over and beyond the current panic Franco/chinese deal. The potential problems and risks surrounding nuclear in reality shows it makes little real difference for, in terms of risk reduction, the UK government to continue to go down the nuclear route, given that even if they were to replace all of their own reactors with other forms of power generation, they have France sitting on their doorstep whose whole nation are entirely dependant and totally committed to a future of nuclear energy.

 

What will be of interest to see in the coming years is how much control and reliance over energy production the UK government will allow other nations to gain and indeed thus the long-term benefits or repercussions of such a strategy.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Nouveau

[fiveworlds]

Actually the United Kingdom is far from overpopulated and land distribution means that only 7% has been urbanised.

 

Apart from the fact that the United Kingdom is the most densely populated major country in Europe http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html

 

However being on an island London is limited in the size of its catchment area. This leads to problems such as Japan being unable to feed itself."

What?

That's wrong on more levels than farting in a lift.

 

Um the Japanese food crisis is a thing they have to rely on food imports now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/asia_pac_japan0s_food_crisis/html/6.stm

 

 

Also, it's quite a long while- it is, for example, possible that we will have fusion power in less than 200 years.Two hundred years ago, humanity was inventing dental floss and the Davy lamp, Things might alsochange in the next 200.

 

While entirely possible so far fusion power has yielded little in the way of electricity. Unless you believe rumors.

Edited November 8, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Nouveau]

Actually the United Kingdom is far from overpopulated and land distribution means that only 7% has been urbanised.

 

Apart from the fact that the United Kingdom is the most densely populated major country in Europe http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html

 

However being on an island London is limited in the size of its catchment area. This leads to problems such as Japan being unable to feed itself."

What?

That's wrong on more levels than farting in a lift.

 

Um the Japanese food crisis is a thing they have to rely on food imports now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/asia_pac_japan0s_food_crisis/html/6.stm

 

 

Also, it's quite a long while- it is, for example, possible that we will have fusion power in less than 200 years.Two hundred years ago, humanity was inventing dental floss and the Davy lamp, Things might alsochange in the next 200.

 

While entirely possible so far fusion power has yielded little in the way of electricity. Unless you believe rumors.

 

 

Overpopulation of the UK is a propaganda claim usually wheeled out to support an anti immigration agenda. Of the major European nations the Netherlands is the most densly populated with 407 people per square kilometer, (the UK comes down the list, in 51st place of the most densly populated nations overall, with some 262 people for every square kilometer), but even the higher Dutch figure pales in comparison to some of the smaller European places such as Gibraltar or Monaco with each having 4,250 and 18,900 people per square kilometer respectively.

I would strongly ask you to carefully consider whether the Daily Mail is one of the best or the most reliable of sources for research or citation purposes.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

http://www.monacostatistics.mc/Population-and-employment

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_367167.pdf

 

[Endy0816]

 

Centralised larger population areas however haven't been the cause or even a problem in terms of the UK's energy situation. A failure to maintain or replace aging power stations and an under capitalisation in their renewables program have seriously added to the situation. There seems to a confused approach to energy production, over a decade ago renewables were being pushed to the fore as the strategic answer to the nations long-term future, even then this was viewed as a belated attempt to play catch up to the lead being shown by other European countries in making use of solar and wind technology. Nuclear energy was still being talked about but was never the most popular topic on the agenda. Fast forward to 2015 and already with several incidents of power stations having to either go offline or reduce capacity near panic stations have begun set in within some parts of Whitehall, after hushed tones talking up future blackouts out roles this new nuclear deal with the French and Chinese.

Excellent summation. I just don't understand the cause of that failure. Not really saying "Go Nuclear!", just to have some kind of plan in place for ensuring a steady supply in light of a known future decrease in that supply. There's ways to clean up fossil fuel plant emissions, higher investment in renewables, etc.

 

Anyone know what the political climate was like at that time(7-10 years ago)?

 

That's bizarre, even before you consider that

(1) it's not clear that we need nuclear power- I think we might, but others disagree.

(2) there's no reason why we couldn't build it ourselves.

The UK built the world's first commercial power reactor.

I took a glance and a number of UK power companies appear to be under foreign ownership(mostly looking at Nuke plants so may not be true more generally).

 

The EDF/CGN aspect is a result of a more general agreement between the companies to work together on projects. CGN purchased several UK wind farms from EDF last year, so they aren't totally new to the UK. You might reasonably be concerned with their profit seeking behavior(ironic considering) but I wouldn't expect anything any more that that to be an issue.

 

...and yeah, some, if not all, of the timing of the official announcement relates to China simply making a show of strength. Quite a few countries received visits with several of those coinciding with big project announcements. China is still China.

 

Just to note there are plans for other Nuclear power plants in the works. This just happens to be a first of sorts.

 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Endy0816

[CharonY]

Apart from the fact that the United Kingdom is the most densely populated major country in Europe http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530125/This-worryingly-crowded-isle-England-officially-Europes-densely-packed-country.html

 

 

 

Wow that article is horrible. They apparently do little to distinguish Holland and Netherlands or UK and England. According to EU numbers 2014 the Density of Netherlands was at 369.9/km2 and Belgium at 352. UK is quite a bit lower with 251 and Germany with 229.9.

 

UN numbers for 2015 indicate UK at 262, Belgium at 366 and Netherlands at 405. Germany at 231. It is among the most densely populated European Nations (Japan is at 335, btw) but not the highest (unless you write for a tabloid, I assume).

[John Cuthber]

The daily mail is pretty much a right wing propaganda rag.

London's position on a island did not cause Japan's problems.

All cities are on islands.

[CharonY]

Yes indeed. The disparity in terms of net food production is quite large between Japan and the UK. I think about 70% of its consumed is homep-produced vs 40% in Japan. That both on Islands is only tangential to the whole matter.Some of the reasons include the shift to Western style diets and increased meat consumption(which necessitates the import of non-home-grown produce) but more importantly, the increased urbanization with heavily decline of rural populations (and hence, farmers) as well as the aging of the population (and again, especially the rural population is hit hard). If the availability of land was an issue, food production would have peaked at some point.

Instead, it has been steadily declining over the last decades.

 

From NYTimes:

 

Moreover, a sprawling and bureaucratic distribution system dissipates farmers’ earnings. That leaves farm incomes depressed despite the heavy protection they receive and drives younger generations from farming, experts say. In 2010, the average age of Japan’s 2.6 million farmers reached 65.

 

Thus, space and population density is not the issue here. Rather it is demographics and economic drivers. To some extent this is also happening in European/Western countries. There is a general decline in farming (especially small farms are dying out), but it is rather independent on whether you happen to be an island or not.

[Nouveau]

The daily mail is pretty much a right wing propaganda rag.

London's position on a island did not cause Japan's problems.

All cities are on islands.

 

Quite an apt description.

 

One might even perhaps wonder with some justification if it's that unreasonable to suspect that the Daily Mail's entire raison d'etre is to castigate and chastise non-nationals, that a whole nations ills should be attributed solely to the evils of immigration and those who don't actively oppose it. But thank goodness they don't publish in New York, given their tendacy for exaggeration and over population scare stories residents of Manhattan may be forgiven for thinking they were living in the middle of the apocalypse, should they actually ever believe any of these ridiculous fairy tales that is.

 

Yes indeed. The disparity in terms of net food production is quite large between Japan and the UK. I think about 70% of its consumed is homep-produced vs 40% in Japan. That both on Islands is only tangential to the whole matter.Some of the reasons include the shift to Western style diets and increased meat consumption(which necessitates the import of non-home-grown produce) but more importantly, the increased urbanization with heavily decline of rural populations (and hence, farmers) as well as the aging of the population (and again, especially the rural population is hit hard). If the availability of land was an issue, food production would have peaked at some point.

Instead, it has been steadily declining over the last decades.

 

From NYTimes:

 

Thus, space and population density is not the issue here. Rather it is demographics and economic drivers. To some extent this is also happening in European/Western countries. There is a general decline in farming (especially small farms are dying out), but it is rather independent on whether you happen to be an island or not.

 

 

Just looking at this land distribution map it appears quite staggering how unpopulated the UK actually is, the amount of available farmland must surely be enough to provide for all of the agriculture and food requirements without ever really having to become dependant on imports in quite the same way as Japan. More over the amount of coastline surely offers great opportunities for expansion of offshore windfarms to reduce the reliance on imported fossil fuels.

[CharonY]

One of the major drivers is most likely economy. If certain food supplies are cheaper (or only possible) to get from elsewhere, they will be imported. If biofuels are more profitable, they will be grown instead of food. If consumers prefer low-efficient foods (such as meat) over more sustainable ones, the former will be produced. To complicate matters, due to globalization quite often raw products (such as meat or wheat) are exported to another country and then processed foods are imported, at a higher cost. Examples that I read recently was export of milk to Germany and importing German yoghurt. This also contributes to a trade deficit, for example.

Or to put it into other words, complex situations arise from many factors. Trying to find a single answer (e.g. lack of land) most likely does not hold sufficient explanatory power.