A report concludes that within 5 - 7 years, the UK may face a gap between supply and demand for its electricity. According to the firm Inenco, which offers consultancy on energy and environment issues (as do I for that matter), the number of nuclear and coal fueled power stations that are due to come out of service within this period is likely to cause power shortages. In contrast, other analysts think that new plants can be constructed in time to avert this unwelcome outcome. My understanding is that it takes around 10 years to build a coal-fired plant and 15 years for a nuclear power plant, and so the latter conclusion might appear optimistic or touch and go, at best.
think that the crunch will hit some time during 2012 and 2015, which
coincides nicely with the expected arrival of peak oil. Coal-fired
plants have been running more than previously expected as a result of
increased gas prices, and their operating hours are limited by EU
legislation intended to limit pollution e.g. from SO2. The latter
states that such plants built before 1987 must be either fitted with
contemporary emissions control equipment or they can only run for a
maximum of 20,000 hours between 2008 and 2015, by when they must be
withdrawn entirely from service. 20,000 hours is roughly 2 years, and
the old unmodified plants are likely to use-up their quota sooner than
was planned, resulting in their closure becoming more immediate.
most obvious means to fill the generation-gap is to build new gas-fired
stations, but potential investors may be unwilling to put their money
into them when nuclear power has been given the go-ahead, and is
considered by some to be the more favourable technology, ultimately.
Even if we re not bedevilled by power cuts, there is little doubt that
electricity prices will rise in the years to come.
subject of coal-fired powered stations, I note that the UK government
is anticipated to approve the construction of a facility without
insisting that it adopts carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment.
This does not surprise me since I noticed an off-the-cuff mention in
the recent report about the future of nuclear power in the UK, which
overviewed the various issues of energy provision, that CCS technology
may not prove viable, in its final actuality. I have seen figures to
the effect that it would take about 20 - 40% of the energy output from
a coal-fired power plant to implement CCS, meaning that a third power
plant would need to be built to cope with the carbon emissions for
every two new ones that were so installed, hence it is not a trivial
The new plant is to be situated in Medway in Kent, and
there rests the proviso that it might be fitted with CCS in the future.
Given the present state of the art for CCS which has no immediate
reference for use on a commercial scale, I wonder of it will ever
become a feature of coal-powered stations. China, for instance, a
nation which opens a new coal-fired station each week does not use CCS,
it should be noted, despite using more coal than anywhere else.
According to Greenpeace, seven other plants of similar size or larger
are expected, which will not ease Britain's way into its commitment to
curb its carbon emissions to 40% of current levels by 2050. I suspect
by then, CO2 emissions will be the least of anybody's worries and they
will be cut anyway by the shortage of fossil fuels, including coal.
in coalmines are well known and some can rage unsubdued for years. In
the classic "Miller's Elements of Chemistry", said author describes how
a fire in a mine at Clackmannan in Scotland, which had burned for
thirty years, was extinguished in the year 1851 by filling it with 8
million cubic feet of a mixture of CO2 and N2 produced by forcing a
stream of air through a furnace filled with red-hot coke. The seam of
coal was 9 feet thick and extended over an area of 26 acres. It was
necessary to maintain the stream of gas for three weeks after the fire
had been put out in order to cool the coal-mass so it did not simply
re-ignite on returning air to the mine workings. To assist the cooling,
water was blown-in as a fine spray with the damping gas.
recently, in China, a fire was put out that had burned in a mine for
over 50 years. The mine is at Terak in Xinjiang, described as a
sparsely populated, mainly Muslim, area rich in natural resources. The
procedure adopted was to drill into the mine and pump in a mixture of
water and slurry, and then to cap the mine-shafts to exclude oxygen.
The fire is believed to have consumed 12.5 million tonnes of coal and
emitted over 70,000 tonnes of toxic gases per year since the 1950's. In
addition to curbing this further toll on the environment, at least 651
million tonnes of coal have thereby been "saved" - but for further, albeit more useful, combustion.
First posted on "energy balance": http://ergobalance.blogspot.com, February 13, 2008.
"Coalmine fire put out after half a century", By Jane Macartney, Times
Online November 22nd 2007.
 "Miller's Elements of Chemistry, Part II. Inorganic Chemistry", John W. Parker and Son., London, 1856.
 "Britain 'facing energy shortfall'", By Richard Black, BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7210625.stm
"Energy firm wants carbon freedom at new coal plant", By John Vidal,
Key words :
UK May Struggle to Meet Electricity Demands
4 Mar, 2008 09:59 am
A gap between demand and supply for electricity may strike the UK within 5 - 7 years, coinciding with the likely arrival of peak oil. Gas-fired power stations are an obvious answer but investors may be reluctant to support them if nuclear power is perceived to be the longer term solution. Coal-fired plants look set as a part of the future energy-mix, but it is doubtful to what extent carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will be implemented.