Power cut and ken livingstones comments

[60085]

I thought it was called Hartlepool.

Oh no, that's Hangthemonkeyville....

Cheeky ., Good job I'm moving next week to Dalesville.

I'd get away from Hartlepool as soon as pos. That reactor has to have a leak.


60085 "MANNA".

[Goingnorth]

I thought it was called Hartlepool.

Oh no, that's Hangthemonkeyville....

Cheeky ., Good job I'm moving next week to Dalesville.

I'd get away from Hartlepool as soon as pos. That reactor has to have a leak.


60085 "MANNA".

I think I better wait till I'm moved to make comment on that. Although I'm sure that water wasn't there last time I looked..

<IMG width="800" height="600" SRC="http://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic ... artpwr.JPG">

[60085]

Look at the man in the forgroundd. He's clearly got Ricketts or something similar with that stance - cause by the power station on their doorstep .

We went on a school day out to the Hartlepool Nuclear facility about 6-7 years ago. Very impressive it was too. The visitors center was canny although not as good as Sellafield. We did have a fit lady showing us round the Hartlepool plant though .

* I apolgise to those who viewed my un-edited posts spelling & grammar .


60085 "MANNA".

[martinhodgson]

Heysham was always good, going in the turbine room. Oh, and theres a 'drivers eye view' of the class 40 that was rammed into a nuclear flask

[anakha]

See how your point becomes almost idiotic? Everything needs regulation. Your post talked about the power REGULATOR OFGEM. That in itself is regulation.

There is a difference between price regulation and general regulation. If you have an industry that you deem important to the functioning of the country you can have that industry in private hands but guide the industry to deliver what you want by the use of regulation. The power industry in the UK is an example. It is privatised and assets are in the hands of private companies so the Government can no longer instruct those companies to do x, y and z. However, with the use of regulation it can set general rules that will, ultimately, deliver those policy requirements.

For example, if the Government wants to have 50% of UK electricity generation from renewable sources it cannot order private companies to build wind turbines. However, through regulation it can implement policies that would encourage such an outcome and deliver it's target.

Price regulation is not the same. It involves the Government controlling the price of goods/services. However, price ceilings, which stop prices from going above a certain maximum, cause shortages. Price floors, which prohibit prices below a certain minimum, cause surpluses. In a fully competitive environment, market forces are more effective than regulation in providing consumers with a wide choice of services at reasonable prices. Thus, it's possible for OFGEM to regulate an industry and not be involved in price regulation at all.

You also misunderstand the UK's spare energy margin. We ON AVERAGE, have that much spare. But at peak times, we actually have a deficit - hence the big cable under the Channel from France. During the rush hour we have to import energy from France to cover our losses. What would happen if I removed that cable? We'd be up . creek, because we are running on a system that does not have ENOUGH excess built into it. And a fine example is our recent powercut.

By basing your post on figures you become credible, but figures can be misused. The actual situation in the UK is at peak times we are teetering on the edge of constant brownouts, yet during the night, we have a 40% surplus.

The actual figures don't suggest that we are teetering on the edge of constant brownouts at all.

In terms of power generation last winter's peak demand was over 17% short of total capacity.

Additionally, the fact that the UK currently imports electricity from France doesn't prove that the country is dangerously short of electricity. If you removed that cable - or if the generating gap reduced in the future and shortages were likely - then the price for electricity would increase and the market would respond by bringing additional generating capacity online.

This is already happening with the Powergen plants in Kent or the new inter-connectors between the UK & Norway and the UK & the Netherlands (both currently planned or under construction).

[Horgy]

The actual figures don't suggest that we are teetering on the edge of constant brownouts at all.

In terms of power generation last winter's peak demand was over 17% short of total capacity.

My point exactly. The figures are not showing true power demand. The graph I have shown shows the power demand..



Blue represents the average figure that you talk about. Pink is the actual power usage. You will notice the graph goes over 100%. The extra over and above that, is made up from the cable to France.

Additionally, the fact that the UK currently imports electricity from France doesn't prove that the country is dangerously short of electricity. If you removed that cable - or if the generating gap reduced in the future and shortages were likely - then the price for electricity would increase and the market would respond by bringing additional generating capacity online.

This is already happening with the Powergen plants in Kent or the new inter-connectors between the UK & Norway and the UK & the Netherlands (both currently planned or under construction).

Yeah, same way there's a revamp of the railway's in the pipeline - it'll take a million years for the burocracy to get their finger out.

You are correct - on AVERAGE, we are not dangerously short of electricity. But when you look at my graph, you can see that the UK does not have much room for movement.

I ask you this - if we have such a power surplus, why are power prices set to rise? And why did the power cut of recent happen?

Horgy

[anakha]

My point exactly. The figures are not showing true power demand. The graph I have shown shows the power demand..

Blue represents the average figure that you talk about. Pink is the actual power usage. You will notice the graph goes over 100%. The extra over and above that, is made up from the cable to France.

I’m not sure what your graph is indicating. If it compares average usage with actual usage the actual usage line will have peaks above the average line and troughs below it. Isn't that what the average does – it flattens out the peaks and troughs? What it needs to compare is usage/demand vs generation/supply

if we have such a power surplus, why are power prices set to rise?

Over recent years the electricity generating industry became highly profitable and new firms were encouraged to enter the market and to build more power plants leading to overcapacity. This then lead to the reduction in the wholesale price of electricity which made much of the plant in the industry unprofitable, and rationalisation in the form of plant closures inevitable.

We’ve now reached a point where the rationalisation has reduced the amount of spare capacity and this is causing the price to rise. As the price rises plant that has been taken out of use becomes profitable again and so it is revived and brought back online. This is what is happening with Powergen who mothballed 20% of their generating capacity but are now bringing some of that back into service.

The point is that spare generating capacity has been reduced over recent years but we haven’t reached a point yet where it is critical and widespread power cuts are imminent.

And why did the power cut of recent happen?

No-one yet knows the cause of the recent power cut in London. It’s been reported that there was a sequence of technical faults in the distribution network – not as a result of there not being sufficient electricity being generated. Roger Urwin, the boss of National Grid (NG) said it was a freak coincidence and the last time something similar happened was 1987 – not every 2 years. If it was because there isn’t enough electricity now for the UK why was power restored in less than an hour?

Also the power cut doesn't prove that NG has underinvested in the grid system. Ofgem gives NG targets for investment in grid infrastructure at a fixed rate of return, but then allows NG to earn higher returns if it invests beyond the target. As a result, NG has spent over £3 billion on grid infrastructure since 1989 - about four times the rate of investment when it was state-owned.

[Horgy]

I’m not sure what your graph is indicating. If it compares average usage with actual usage the actual usage line will have peaks above the average line and troughs below it. Isn't that what the average does – it flattens out the peaks and troughs? What it needs to compare is usage/demand vs generation/supply

But it shows how your original use of figures could lead to a misunderstanding of any power surplus the UK claims to have. We have a power surplus when you average out the figures, but when actually examining the hour by hour usage, you can see at peak time we teeter on the brink of failure. This is covered by the power cable across the Channel from France. Actually, this arrangement works well because it stops the UK having plants operating for only an hour each day, and the same for France.

Over recent years the electricity generating industry became highly profitable and new firms were encouraged to enter the market and to build more power plants leading to overcapacity. This then lead to the reduction in the wholesale price of electricity which made much of the plant in the industry unprofitable, and rationalisation in the form of plant closures inevitable.

We’ve now reached a point where the rationalisation has reduced the amount of spare capacity and this is causing the price to rise. As the price rises plant that has been taken out of use becomes profitable again and so it is revived and brought back online. This is what is happening with Powergen who mothballed 20% of their generating capacity but are now bringing some of that back into service.

The point is that spare generating capacity has been reduced over recent years but we haven’t reached a point yet where it is critical and widespread power cuts are imminent.

But, as privatised industries, you have to remember these companies are driven by profit. If I ran the grid, and wanted to run it to a profit, i'd be more inclined to spend as little on the network as possible. That's human nature.

You also mention that newer firms were encouraged to enter the industry. Well, if the government encouragd them to startup - probably with tax payer funded grants and incentives - then why does it not offer them more grants when it comes crashing down? The government obviously convinced these companies to invest heavily in the country (as you mention with the construction of new plants - not a cheap option) and is now simply walking away when it doesn't work. That's obviously not fair, especially when it results in job losses. Your attitude suggests that you think it IS fair - i'd wonder if you would say the same if a member of your family had been made redundant...

No-one yet knows the cause of the recent power cut in London. It’s been reported that there was a sequence of technical faults in the distribution network – not as a result of there not being sufficient electricity being generated. Roger Urwin, the boss of National Grid (NG) said it was a freak coincidence and the last time something similar happened was 1987 – not every 2 years. If it was because there isn’t enough electricity now for the UK why was power restored in less than an hour?

Also the power cut doesn't prove that NG has underinvested in the grid system. Ofgem gives NG targets for investment in grid infrastructure at a fixed rate of return, but then allows NG to earn higher returns if it invests beyond the target. As a result, NG has spent over £3 billion on grid infrastructure since 1989 - about four times the rate of investment when it was state-owned.

Of course he said it was a freak co incidence. If he said "This is a sign of things to come, widespread underinvestment means we are running on a network powered by antiquidated technology that's about to collapse like a house of cards" there would be riots and panic - although maybe the portable generator society would benefit.

You say a "sequence of technical faults" - that alone shows how fragile the network is. Surely one fault should be covered by a backup generator or distribution equipment. Of course not! That would mean investment, especially when penny pinching accountants decide it's a "freak co incidence." Power was restored because it's in the middle of rush hour and thousands of people were stranded on trains deep in holes underground - that obviously makes it a priority!

Where did you get that Ofgem investment source? Ofgem? Next you'll be telling us the health system is hunky dory because the government says it is!

Horgy

[anakha]

But it shows how your original use of figures could lead to a misunderstanding of any power surplus the UK claims to have. We have a power surplus when you average out the figures, but when actually examining the hour by hour usage, you can see at peak time we teeter on the brink of failure. This is covered by the power cable across the Channel from France. Actually, this arrangement works well because it stops the UK having plants operating for only an hour each day, and the same for France.

The figure I quoted for about 20% spare capacity over normal demand last winter came from the Electricity Association. I don’t see where the evidence is for the idea that the UK currently teeters on the brink of power cuts at peak times. The graph you’ve used shows actual usage and average usage rather than how much electricity has been generated vs usage?

But, as privatised industries, you have to remember these companies are driven by profit. If I ran the grid, and wanted to run it to a profit, i'd be more inclined to spend as little on the network as possible. That's human nature.

Because these companies are driven by profit, if the right incentives are put in place they can be encouraged to spend more to make more. The expenditure of the National Grid on grid infrastructure is an example. By allowing the company a greater rate of return on higher investments, the incentive is there to spend more. If you ran the grid and wanted to run it to a profit would you spend £1million to make a 1% return on investment or £2million to make a 10% return?

You also mention that newer firms were encouraged to enter the industry. Well, if the government encouragd them to startup - probably with tax payer funded grants and incentives - then why does it not offer them more grants when it comes crashing down? The government obviously convinced these companies to invest heavily in the country (as you mention with the construction of new plants - not a cheap option) and is now simply walking away when it doesn't work. That's obviously not fair, especially when it results in job losses.

The Government didn’t need to play any active part in encouraging new firms to enter the market. The signals being sent by the market are all that was needed. If the wholesale price of electricity rose following privatisation that would be enough to encourage firms to enter. Did Electricite de France or the German energy companies RWE or E.ON enter the UK market because the British Government gave them money? No, they entered it because they could see an opportunity to make money. If they made bad business decisions, is it right for the UK taxpayer to bail them out?

Bail outs frequently lead to bail outs frequently lead to….and so on. Take the example of British Energy. They couldn’t make money so asked the Government for £400million+ of tax-payers money and that increased to £600million. Does the Government continue to pump money into this company so that it can keep going or put it into administration and allow it to be sold to a bidder who thinks they can run it better and start to make a profit?

Your attitude suggests that you think it IS fair - i'd wonder if you would say the same if a member of your family had been made redundant...

Unfortunately, my father was made redundant in the early 1980’s. I have first hand experience of the damage that can do to a man, his self-esteem and, by extension, his family.

However, it isn’t right for a Government to spend tax-payers money propping up uncompetitive industries to ensure that people remain in work. It is right for a Government to implement policies which give its companies the best chance to succeed and, if they still fail, to strive to ensure that the economy grows so that other sources of employment replace those being lost.

The UK coal industry is a shadow of its former self, steel production shrunk, hardly any shipyards survive and lots of heavy engineering has gone. All of these industries would have suffered redundancies. However, by the end of 2001 unemployment in the UK was about 5% suggesting that the economy had created jobs to replace those lost.

Take a look at the Royal Mail. This company lost about £300million in 2001/02 and about £200million in 2002/03 - money that had to be made up by the UK tax-payer. Because the Royal Mail employs 160,000 people should we keep going along with massive losses and bailouts each year because we can’t allow the company to become more efficient if that efficiency involves job losses? Should we continually increase the price of stamps so that the company makes more money even if that means millions of consumers pay more?

You say a "sequence of technical faults" - that alone shows how fragile the network is. Surely one fault should be covered by a backup generator or distribution equipment. Of course not! That would mean investment, especially when penny pinching accountants decide it's a "freak co incidence."

The sequence of technical faults quoted by National Grid as the cause of the power cut doesn’t demonstrate a network on the brink of collapse. If the sequence of faults occurs once every dozen+ years it doesn’t indicate a system that is falling apart– if it occurred every few months then it might. If a water main bursts in a high street in any town in the UK does that demonstrate that the UK water distribution network is about to collapse?

The fact that such a fault occurs so rarely is also why it is not sensible to provide some sort of duplicate distribution system. To protect against something that is going to occur every few years would it be sensible to duplicate every single transformer, every single pylon and section of transmission cable? Would it be money well spent to duplicate every single water distribution pipe in the country because a water main somewhere might burst?

Power was restored because it's in the middle of rush hour and thousands of people were stranded on trains deep in holes underground - that obviously makes it a priority!

How could power have been restored so quickly if the power cut was because the UK doesn’t have enough electricity? If the power cut was an example of teetering on the edge of constant brownouts how were the generating companies able to generate more electricity when only an hour before there wasn’t enough to go round? If the power cut was because the distribution grid is so fragile why aren’t more such failures happening on a daily or weekly basis? The fact that the power cut was such a big story shows how unusual the failure was.

Where did you get that Ofgem investment source? Ofgem? Next you'll be telling us the health system is hunky dory because the government says it is!

The source for the amount of money invested by National Grid in grid infrastructure since 1989 came from National Grid’s annual report. It might carry some weight - unless, of course, they’re lying?

[Horgy]

Hmm, I forget what the actual point of the argument was, hell its 1:30am I don't have time to write another essay!

My point was, that the majority of key industry in this country is old and falling apart. And it's not just us, the US has it's fair share of problems. Did you know the water pipes under London were put in during the 1800's? It's not under investment that is the problem, its letting such facilities and infrastructure reach a point where it is replaced as it fails, not BEFORE it fails. Potters Bar? Hatfield? Ring any bells? Thames Water loses millions of cubic metres of water a day to cracks and leaks, so there are definately problems. And I just feel that the power cut is a sign of things to come - i've had 5-6 brownouts in the last few months alone..

Anyway, just my $0.02

Horgy

[anakha]

Hmm, I forget what the actual point of the argument was, hell its 1:30am I don't have time to write another essay!

My point was, that the majority of key industry in this country is old and falling apart. And it's not just us, the US has it's fair share of problems. Did you know the water pipes under London were put in during the 1800's? It's not under investment that is the problem, its letting such facilities and infrastructure reach a point where it is replaced as it fails, not BEFORE it fails. Potters Bar? Hatfield? Ring any bells? Thames Water loses millions of cubic metres of water a day to cracks and leaks, so there are definately problems. And I just feel that the power cut is a sign of things to come - i've had 5-6 brownouts in the last few months alone..

Anyway, just my $0.02

Horgy

As is often the case the reality probably involves a mix of the points you've been putting forward and the points I've been putting forward. Ultimately, only time will tell on the electricity thing - if we've not got enough generating capacity or the distribution network is starting to fall apart then we'll start to get plenty of power cuts in the coming months/years. There are plenty of people who agree with the points you've been making - Ian Fell who is one of the Government's energy advisers was widely reported as saying there was a 20% chance of power cuts this winter.

In my opinion it's a worry in this country that the self-serving stories reported by the likes of the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror etc. seem to be swallowed hook, line and sinker by the UK population. This leads to sweeping generalisations in public opinion such as all economic migrants are bad for the country, all politicians are corrupt money grabbing crooks, privatisation is bad.

I don't get involved in many threads on ukts. When I do, all I try to do is point out that, in a lot of cases, there's plenty of evidence for counter-arguments to the opinions expressed. For example, if someone is going to say they believe that privatisation is wrong then they should try to understand that there is evidence that says it works and works well. If we can put forward our opinions, take on-board the opposing opinions of each other and re-evaluate our original stand-point to see if those opposing opinions either reinforce our original stand-point or make us adjust it we might be a bit better at tackling some of the problems in the UK (hope that doesn't sound too pompous!!!).

Anyway, what are you doing on ukts at 1.30am - I know it's good but surely not that good.