from the Institution of Civil Engineers:

Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
report

22 Sep 2008

Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says a
new report.

The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
economy.

Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
such as nuclear power.

The report also sketches out a ‘route map to energy survival’ to show
how the gap in the UK’s energy generation capacity can be bridged.

Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf document)
http://tinyurl.com/5auksk

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
news:81spd49gbe6ashp4lklj5efdlloo1auhbe@4ax.com...
> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>
> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
> report
>
> 22 Sep 2008
>
> Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
> urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says a
> new report.
>
> The report - A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK - was compiled by
> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
> economy.
>
> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
> such as nuclear power.
>
> The report also sketches out a 'route map to energy survival' to show
> how the gap in the UK's energy generation capacity can be bridged.
>
> Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf document)
> http://tinyurl.com/5auksk

We heard you the first time.
Lets hope you're one of the first to suffer these cuts. It'll be nice
and quite on here.

"Nick"  wrote:

>We heard you the first time.
>Lets hope you're one of the first to suffer these cuts. It'll be nice
>and quite on here.


Too thick to use a kill file?

On 26 Sep, 15:25, Tony Polson  wrote:
> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>
> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
> report
>
> 22 Sep 2008
>
> Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
> urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says a
> new report.
>
> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
> economy.
>
> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
> such as nuclear power.
>
> The report also sketches out a ‘route map to energy survival’ to show
> how the gap in the UK’s energy generation capacity can be bridged.
>
> Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf document)http://tinyurl.com/5auksk

Good job those nice French people are building those four nuclear
power stations then. Which they agree in the report is entirely
sensible.

On 26 Sep, 21:28, Tony Polson  wrote:
> "Nick"  wrote:
> >We heard you the first time.
> >Lets hope you're one of the first to suffer these cuts. It'll be nice
> >and quite on here.
>
> Too thick to use a kill file?

Charming - as usual.
Go on. kill file me.

"826"  wrote in message
news:d411120e-e260-4632-a3ba-dbce4aedfc37@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> On 26 Sep, 15:25, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>>
>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>> report
>>
>> 22 Sep 2008
>>
>> Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
>> urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says
>> a new report.
>>
>> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>> economy.
>>
>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>> such as nuclear power.
>>
>> The report also sketches out a ‘route map to energy survival’ to show
>> how the gap in the UK’s energy generation capacity can be bridged.
>>
>> Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf
>> document)http://tinyurl.com/5auksk
>
> Good job those nice French people are building those four nuclear
> power stations then. Which they agree in the report is entirely
> sensible.

We'll need more than four. Luckily, the kindly Germans seem likely to 
build us at least a couple more. It's galling for someone like me who 
did an MSc in nuclear reactor engineering at a top British University 
that we can't build our own any more.

On 26 Sep, 21:42, jeffworsnop  wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 21:28, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
> > "Nick"  wrote:
> > >We heard you the first time.
> > >Lets hope you're one of the first to suffer these cuts. It'll be nice
> > >and quite on here.
>
> > Too thick to use a kill file?
>
> Charming - as usual.
> Go on. kill file me.

As said elsewhere on another thread dominated by TP, I would kill file
him , but the entertainment value is too good. The thing is TP tries
to have heated online "discussions" with people of intellect, using
arrogance and a well practised inability to form an understanding of
the other persons point of view. Doomed to failure. But not just here,
there are several forums where he surfaces, and in each one he treats
people the same way! It was described very well on BBC this evening in
a report about an internet forum where someone fell out with someone
else and it ended in a murder. Online people afraid to say boo to a
goose normally become all brave and aggressive.

"Recliner" <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:

>"826"  wrote in message
>news:d411120e-e260-4632-a3ba-dbce4aedfc37@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>> On 26 Sep, 15:25, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>>>
>>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>>> report
>>>
>>> 22 Sep 2008
>>>
>>> Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
>>> urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says
>>> a new report.
>>>
>>> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
>>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>>> such as nuclear power.
>>>
>>> The report also sketches out a ‘route map to energy survival’ to show
>>> how the gap in the UK’s energy generation capacity can be bridged.
>>>
>>> Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf
>>> document)http://tinyurl.com/5auksk
>>
>> Good job those nice French people are building those four nuclear
>> power stations then. Which they agree in the report is entirely
>> sensible.
>
>We'll need more than four. 


The number we need (alas) probably runs nearer 20 than 4.


>Luckily, the kindly Germans seem likely to 
>build us at least a couple more. 


The Germans are looking for work outside Germany; in their own
country, all the nuclear stations will be closed by 2022 and no more
will ever be built.


>It's galling for someone like me who 
>did an MSc in nuclear reactor engineering at a top British University 
>that we can't build our own any more. 


I have no doubt that there were some very good people working on high
level reactor design but the problem was in constructing the M&E
elements of the power stations to the very high standards needed. 

I must admit I breathed a sigh of relief when EDF bought British
Energy.  Having seen the results of gross incompetence in the British
nuclear industry through having worked on several nuclear projects
(and having visited every nuclear power station but one in the course
of my work) I was very strongly opposed to any more nuclear stations
being built in Britain on safety grounds, and refused to work in the
nuclear industry again.  It meant leaving the company I worked for and
having to sacrifice some of the career progress that I had made.

The French have shown far greater competence and their safety record,
whilst not perfect, is excellent by world standards.  If EDF can bring
their culture of professionalism to bear on their UK workforce, it
will be a very good thing for all concerned.

I still have major concerns about costs; even the most modern nuclear
station - Sizewell B - was a very substantial loss maker.  But I
accept that wind power on a large scale is a dead loss and tidal power
will probably never be viable, so the only practical way left open to
us to generate low-CO2 electricity is nuclear.

On 26 Sep, 22:16, 826  wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 21:42, jeffworsnop  wrote:
>
> > On 26 Sep, 21:28, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
> > > "Nick"  wrote:
> > > >We heard you the first time.
> > > >Lets hope you're one of the first to suffer these cuts. It'll be nice
> > > >and quite on here.
>
> > > Too thick to use a kill file?
>
> > Charming - as usual.
> > Go on. kill file me.
>
> As said elsewhere on another thread dominated by TP, I would kill file
> him , but the entertainment value is too good. The thing is TP tries
> to have heated online "discussions" with people of intellect, using
> arrogance and a well practised inability to form an understanding of
> the other persons point of view. Doomed to failure. But not just here,
> there are several forums where he surfaces, and in each one he treats
> people the same way! It was described very well on BBC this evening in
> a report about an internet forum where someone fell out with someone
> else and it ended in a murder. Online people afraid to say boo to a
> goose normally become all brave and aggressive.

Agreed.
I find that when I can be bothered to check his arguments they are
invariably flawed.
It's all good fun except when he gets personally abusive.
I presume he finds that amusing.
Anyone know where he lives? Would be interesting to be able to
check( from public records)  his personal information.

Tony Polson wrote:


> The Germans are looking for work outside Germany; in their own
> country, all the nuclear stations will be closed by 2022 and no more
> will ever be built.

I wouldn't bet on that "ever". The nuclear moratorium was just to lure
Die Gruene into bed with a coalition ... as soon as they are not
needed they'll be out on their ears and realism will prevail.

Ian

Professor Ian Fells, the genius who got us into "The Dash for Gas."

The man's an idiot and is very fond of scaring people into doing
lunatic things in our energy field.

Why could we be facing an energy crisis in ten years time? Because we
followed Dr Ian Fells advice 20 years ago and put all our eggs into
the gas-fired power stations market.

On Sep 26, 3:25 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>
> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
> report
>
> 22 Sep 2008
>
> Britain will face long-term power cuts in five years time unless
> urgent measures are taken now to replace ageing infrastructure, says a
> new report.
>
> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
> economy.
>
> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
> such as nuclear power.
>
> The report also sketches out a ‘route map to energy survival’ to show
> how the gap in the UK’s energy generation capacity can be bridged.
>
> Link to report: (warning: links to .pdf document)http://tinyurl.com/5auksk

I presume you got this ICE quote/press release from somewhere but it
isn't in their news or media centre section of their website.

Anyway, I'm not the first to point out here or on your other thread
that this is a great example of vested interest groups and
scaremongers at work.  The "report" is sponsored by a self confessed
nuclear power enthusiast and the author of the report resorts to
splashing a large quote from himself on one of the pages (page 25)!

He doesn't seem to have any nuclear experience either (
http://www.incoteco.com/?page=people ) and scroll down

Other than that, from a quick scan of the report there is a
disproportionate amount of nuclear content followed by a lengthy
appraisal of the Severn barrage.

The "report" is dated a month ago, why has it just surfaced now to
coincide with the EDF announcement?

The suggestion that the whole of Britain's energy policy has been in
limbo pending the arrival of viable offshore wind is laughable.  (If
Prof Fells wanted to make an overtly political point he should have
just mentioned as an example the government's arrogance in trying to
force through their energy review/policy without following the proper
process)

There may well be a serious point being made but when it is dressed up
in such a biased exposition it is surely counter productive

You could always resort to quoting that other energy expert- Noel
Edmonds.  Cue deliberate link to the Mirror instead of the Mail.  They
were gullible enough to be taken in by the Renewable Energy Foundation
he started purely as a lobbying group/front to campaign against the
wind farms on his doorstep!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/09/noel-edmonds-on-how-the-government-is-ignoring-the-energy-crisis-89520-20600642/

commingle@onetel.com wrote:

>Professor Ian Fells, the genius who got us into "The Dash for Gas."
>
>The man's an idiot and is very fond of scaring people into doing
>lunatic things in our energy field.
>
>Why could we be facing an energy crisis in ten years time? Because we
>followed Dr Ian Fells advice 20 years ago and put all our eggs into
>the gas-fired power stations market.


To be fair, the Engineering Institutions have been warning about the
looming energy gap for the last four or five years and Professor
Fells' paper is from less than a year ago.  

Fell's paper is useful precisely because it offers a wide view of the
problem whereas policy documents from the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are sadly lacking in that respect.

I do agree with your criticism of the "The Dash for Gas", but it was
New Labour who saw it as a means of reducing the UK's apparent* CO2
emissions and went approving far beyond the number of gas fired
stations that would have been sensible.  Even so, I find it difficult
to see what was the alternative given the inability of the British
nuclear industry to build safe nuclear stations at economic cost, the
huge CO2 penalty of using coal and the lethal combination of very high
costs and near-complete unreliability of wind power - as the Danish
experience has proved, alarmingly, the "zero carbon" claims for wind
power cannot be supported in practice.


* The Government claims to have reduced UK CO2 emissions since 1997.
But a recent study revealed that, with so much manufacturing for the
UK market having been taken over by Chinese companies, the CO2
emissions of the same things that were made in the UK in 1997, but are
now made in China, and have to be shipped half way around the world,
have contributed to an alarming overall **45% INCREASE** in CO2
emissions for which the UK is responsible.

In message 
, at 
14:41:39 on Fri, 26 Sep 2008, jeffworsnop  
remarked:
>Anyone know where he lives? Would be interesting to be able to
>check( from public records)  his personal information.

He claims to live in Aylesbury, but the lack of any Internet footprint 
(for his other activities) outside of Usenet makes me think that perhaps 
he's using a pseudonym.
-- 
Roland Perry

Dr Ian Fells is a con man who says what governments pay him to say.

In the 80's the Tories were anti-miner so he produced anti-coal
analyses and reports.

In the 90's the Tories and then Nu Labor were pro-gas, so he produced
endless reports which initiated and justified the disastrous "dash for
gas."

Now that gas has proved a disaster and Nu Labor want nuclear, he's
doing their propaganda for them and producing reports lauding nuclear.

He makes his geld out of telling politicians what they want to hear
and providing them with the propaganda to justify their decisions.
He's the last person you want to employ to think seriously,
independently, and in an informed way about the future.

commingle@onetel.com wrote:
>
>Dr Ian Fells is a con man who says what governments pay him to say.
>
>In the 80's the Tories were anti-miner so he produced anti-coal
>analyses and reports.
>
>In the 90's the Tories and then Nu Labor were pro-gas, so he produced
>endless reports which initiated and justified the disastrous "dash for
>gas."
>
>Now that gas has proved a disaster and Nu Labor want nuclear, he's
>doing their propaganda for them and producing reports lauding nuclear.
>
>He makes his geld out of telling politicians what they want to hear
>and providing them with the propaganda to justify their decisions.
>He's the last person you want to employ to think seriously,
>independently, and in an informed way about the future.


Perhaps you didn't see my previous reply to your rant:

To be fair, the Engineering Institutions have been warning about the
looming energy gap for the last four or five years and Professor
Fells' paper is from less than a year ago.  

Fell's paper is useful precisely because it offers a wide view of the
problem whereas policy documents from the Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are sadly lacking in that respect.

I do agree with your criticism of the "The Dash for Gas", but it was
New Labour who saw it as a means of reducing the UK's apparent* CO2
emissions and went approving far beyond the number of gas fired
stations that would have been sensible.  Even so, I find it difficult
to see what was the alternative given the inability of the British
nuclear industry to build safe nuclear stations at economic cost, the
huge CO2 penalty of using coal and the lethal combination of very high
costs and near-complete unreliability of wind power - as the Danish
experience has proved, alarmingly, the "zero carbon" claims for wind
power cannot be supported in practice.


* The Government claims to have reduced UK CO2 emissions since 1997.
But a recent study revealed that, with so much manufacturing for the
UK market having been taken over by Chinese companies, the CO2
emissions of the same things that were made in the UK in 1997, but are
now made in China, and have to be shipped half way around the world,
have contributed to an alarming overall **45% INCREASE** in CO2
emissions for which the UK is responsible.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:15:40 +0100, Tim Holden wrote
> 
> The "report" is dated a month ago, why has it just surfaced now to
> coincide with the EDF announcement?

It hasn't just surfaced.  There was a feature about it on the Radio 4 Today 
programme a month ago, including an interview with Prof Fells.

On 27 Sep, 08:23, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 14:41:39 on Fri, 26 Sep 2008, jeffworsnop 
> remarked:
>
> >Anyone know where he lives? Would be interesting to be able to
> >check( from public records)  his personal information.
>
> He claims to live in Aylesbury, but the lack of any Internet footprint
> (for his other activities) outside of Usenet makes me think that perhaps
> he's using a pseudonym.
> --
> Roland Perry

Ah. Thanks for your reply.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message 
> , at 
> 14:41:39 on Fri, 26 Sep 2008, jeffworsnop  
> remarked:
>>Anyone know where he lives? Would be interesting to be able to
>>check( from public records)  his personal information.
> 
> He claims to live in Aylesbury, but the lack of any Internet footprint 
> (for his other activities) outside of Usenet makes me think that perhaps 
> he's using a pseudonym.

He has been known to use several, inter alia as a way of continuing to
harangue those who have killfiled his alter egos.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632889.html
(33 112 at Reading, 1 Jun 1985)

Tony Polson wrote:
> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
> 
> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
> report
> 
> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
> economy.
> 
> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
> such as nuclear power.
>
I thought Fells recieved significant payments from Nuclear Industry?

Jim Chisholm

"J. Chisholm"  wrote:
>Tony Polson wrote:
>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>> 
>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>> report
>> 
>> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>> economy.
>> 
>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>> such as nuclear power.
>>
>I thought Fells recieved significant payments from Nuclear Industry?


So what?  It doesn't alter the facts, and there are a great many
people who already believed we had a serious problem long before
Fell's report was published.  The professional Engineering
Institutions have been lobbying the Government about this issue for at
least the last four years.

You can shoot the messenger as many times as you like, but the problem
remains.  National Grid appear confident that we can survive winter
2008/9, but even they must know that the problem will get worse every
winter from now until at least 2014 because of the ongoing closure
programme for nuclear stations, the failure of wind power to deliver
anything useful, and the long delays before new capacity can be
designed, built and commissioned.

The relevance to railways is not only that security of supply is an
issue, but that the changes in the 'mix' of fuels used to generate the
power will produce more CO2 output per kWh generated each year until
some time in the early 2020s, when new nuclear stations will at last
begin to start reducing the CO2 output per kWh once again.

The advocates of widespread rail electrification have claimed that
there is a CO2 advantage to be gained through changing from diesel to
electric traction.  

If there is a CO2 advantage, it is extremely small, but in any case
that will be quickly wiped out by the steady increases in CO2 per kWh
of electricity generated.  There is also the issue of embedded CO2 in
the electrification itself, with the manufacture of steel, concrete
and copper for OHLE, substations, additional HV power lines etc. all
causing increased CO2 emissions, plus the emissions from all the plant
and equipment that will be used to do the work.

It would therefore appear that the optimum time to reconsider
widespread rail electrification is about ten years from now, when it
will be possible to estimate when nuclear stations then under
construction will be completed, with a view to starting work in the
early 2020s.  Until then, we should sit on our hands.

In message <fgr96jof9iuz$.1jngomob4ek8m$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 16:07:40 on 
Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>perhaps  he's using a pseudonym.
>
>He has been known to use several, inter alia as a way of continuing to
>harangue those who have killfiled his alter egos.

He changes his email address from time to time, but I didn't think the 
name. What other names might you have seen him using?
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <fgr96jof9iuz$.1jngomob4ek8m$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 16:07:40 on 
> Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>>perhaps  he's using a pseudonym.
>>
>>He has been known to use several, inter alia as a way of continuing to
>>harangue those who have killfiled his alter egos.
> 
> He changes his email address from time to time, but I didn't think the 
> name. What other names might you have seen him using?

He pretended to be good and a doctor for a while. There have also been
variations on the name he usually goes by.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683776.html
(144 017 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

In message <tkp4nra1m68h.1i7tan7cbkw0r$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 17:57:58 on 
Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>He pretended to be good and a doctor for a while.

That phase was so transparent it hardly counts.
-- 
Roland Perry

Tony Polson wrote:
> "J. Chisholm"  wrote:
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>>>
>>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>>> report
>>>
>>> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
>>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>>> such as nuclear power.
>>>
>> I thought Fells recieved significant payments from Nuclear Industry?
> 
> 
> So what?  It doesn't alter the facts, and there are a great many
> people who already believed we had a serious problem long before
> Fell's report was published.  The professional Engineering
> Institutions have been lobbying the Government about this issue for at
> least the last four years.
> 
> You can shoot the messenger as many times as you like, but the problem
> remains.  National Grid appear confident that we can survive winter
> 2008/9, but even they must know that the problem will get worse every
> winter from now until at least 2014 because of the ongoing closure
> programme for nuclear stations, the failure of wind power to deliver
> anything useful, and the long delays before new capacity can be
> designed, built and commissioned.
> 
> The relevance to railways is not only that security of supply is an
> issue, but that the changes in the 'mix' of fuels used to generate the
> power will produce more CO2 output per kWh generated each year until
> some time in the early 2020s, when new nuclear stations will at last
> begin to start reducing the CO2 output per kWh once again.
> 
> The advocates of widespread rail electrification have claimed that
> there is a CO2 advantage to be gained through changing from diesel to
> electric traction.  
> 
> If there is a CO2 advantage, it is extremely small, but in any case
> that will be quickly wiped out by the steady increases in CO2 per kWh
> of electricity generated.  There is also the issue of embedded CO2 in
> the electrification itself, with the manufacture of steel, concrete
> and copper for OHLE, substations, additional HV power lines etc. all
> causing increased CO2 emissions, plus the emissions from all the plant
> and equipment that will be used to do the work.
> 
> It would therefore appear that the optimum time to reconsider
> widespread rail electrification is about ten years from now, when it
> will be possible to estimate when nuclear stations then under
> construction will be completed, with a view to starting work in the
> early 2020s.  Until then, we should sit on our hands.
> 
>    

As many of us have said many many times, this argument only holds water 
if you think the reason to electrify is to secure a reduced carbon 
footprint over a diesel service. No serious commentator is taking this 
position. You electrify because it gives you a higher capacity and more 
reliable railway.

GazK <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>As many of us have said many many times, this argument only holds water 
>if you think the reason to electrify is to secure a reduced carbon 
>footprint over a diesel service. No serious commentator is taking this 
>position. 


So Ian Coucher and Adrian Shooter are not serious?  I must admit, I
found their claims in their November 2007 letter to DfT Rail of zero
carbon electricity being used to power the electrified railway to be
completely ludicrous, but I did get the impression that they were at
least *trying* to be serious, even though they got their facts so
hopelessly wrong. 

Are you now saying that it was all a joke after all, and that the
Chief Executive of Network Rail and the Chairman of Chiltern Railways
were just taking the piss? 


>You electrify because it gives you a higher capacity and more 
>reliable railway.


Try selling that to the Treasury.  

If you can put some hard financial figures to those woolly aspirations
- figures that can be rigorously justified using established methods
of evaluation - and the case for the expenditure on electrification
can be justified on the basis of those figures showing an acceptable
rate of return, according to Treasury rules for public investment, you
might just convince them.

Otherwise, forget it, along with the zero carbon claims.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:57:11 +0100, J. Chisholm wrote
> Tony Polson wrote:
>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>> 
>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>> report
>> 
>> The report – A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK – was compiled by
>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>> economy.
>> 
>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>> such as nuclear power.
>> 
> I thought Fells recieved significant payments from Nuclear Industry?

Do you have a reliable cite for this?  Last month he claimed not to

Tony Polson wrote:
> GazK <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> As many of us have said many many times, this argument only holds water 
>> if you think the reason to electrify is to secure a reduced carbon 
>> footprint over a diesel service. No serious commentator is taking this 
>> position. 
> 
> 
> So Ian Coucher and Adrian Shooter are not serious?  I must admit, I
> found their claims in their November 2007 letter to DfT Rail of zero
> carbon electricity being used to power the electrified railway to be
> completely ludicrous, but I did get the impression that they were at
> least *trying* to be serious, even though they got their facts so
> hopelessly wrong. 
> 

Quote from the letter (available in full at 
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=1328 ):

"For the reasons outlined above, this is *not about carbon emissions* 
[my emphasis].  It is about the efficiency in the production of 
electro-motive force.  Yes, improvements in the carbon content of diesel 
fuels are likely  to come about in the coming years, but the burning of 
limited fossil fuels, as opposed to using electricity generated from a 
wide range of very low or zero carbon emissions, seem unnecessary. 
Fossil fuels are a limited resource."

They are not saying that railways can be zero emission. They are saying 
electrification can take power from zero emission sources. If 20% of the 
energy mix is zero carbon, generated by your beloved nuclear power 
stations, then 20% of our power is zero carbon.

> Are you now saying that it was all a joke after all, and that the
> Chief Executive of Network Rail and the Chairman of Chiltern Railways
> were just taking the piss? 

I think someone is.

> 
> 
>> You electrify because it gives you a higher capacity and more 
>> reliable railway.
> 
> 
> Try selling that to the Treasury.  

We are.

> 
> If you can put some hard financial figures to those woolly aspirations
> - figures that can be rigorously justified using established methods
> of evaluation - and the case for the expenditure on electrification
> can be justified on the basis of those figures showing an acceptable
> rate of return, according to Treasury rules for public investment, you
> might just convince them.

I'm quietly hopeful that the forthcoming Network Rail review will do 
exactly the job you describe above. I trust that when this report 
emerges, you will look at its findings in your usual objective manner, 
and then we can have a rational discussion.

One of the things that I would expect the report to do is work on a 
standard 30 year asset life "according to Treasury rules for public 
investment", rather than the 15 years which the DfT seems to have 
recently adopted - but only for electrification - in direct 
contradiction to these rules. Civil servants, tsk...

> 
> Otherwise, forget it, along with the zero carbon claims.
> 

Zero carbon claims? Pray tell, who has been making this claim? Is this a 
straw man I see before me?

Power cuts?
burn peasants

Stimpy wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:57:11 +0100, J. Chisholm wrote
>   
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>     
>>> from the Institution of Civil Engineers:
>>>
>>> Britain can expect long-term power cuts in five years, warns new
>>> report
>>>
>>> The report ? A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK ? was compiled by
>>> Fells Associates, a network of energy and regulatory specialists, who
>>> argue that the current energy policy is not fit for purpose and that
>>> failure to close the energy gap would impact negatively on the
>>> economy.
>>>
>>> Co-author of the report, Professor Ian Fells, said that unrealistic
>>> 'green' aspirations about the potential of offshore wind energy has
>>> led to significant under investment in vital energy infrastructure,
>>> such as nuclear power.
>>>
>>>       
>> I thought Fells recieved significant payments from Nuclear Industry?
>>     
>
> Do you have a reliable cite for this?  Last month he claimed not to
>
>