Link to article
The author talks about a 'modern & intelligent grid' incorporating demand management measures. But what's modern and intelligent about energy rationing when we have a cheap abundant supply of shale gas, enough to last hundreds of years? Rationing would be an unnecessary backwards step. So what's the justification?


Oh dearie me. Does anyone seriously believe that politicians can control the weather with their targets? In a time of austerity and cooling global temperatures why on earth should we stick to these daft targets? 


What's the rush? There's been no global warming this century. Surely in a time of austerity there are more important things to be spending money on than expensive, unreliable, intermittent, diffuse power sources?


What damage? Can you be specific? Generally speaking the global environment is improving as nations get wealthier and are better able to care for the natural environment. Eg. For many years the proportion of forested land in the UK and US  has been increasing (China has also started this process). It's poverty that leads to environmental destruction. Abundant cheap energy is good for the economy and the environment.

 
How do intermittent wind and solar subsidy farms add to energy security? We don't know if the sun will be shining or the wind blowing from one day to the next. And how does having hugely expensive wind and solar subsidy farms help economic growth? Wouldn't the money be better spent on schools and hospitals? Or tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Could it be that these people aren't really interested in 'saving the planet' atall? Could it just be an excuse to sell overpriced non-solutions to an over-hyped non-problem?

Yes.


Yes there has.


No there aren't.




On balance the global environment is getting worse. Please describe exactly how cheap power is going to reverse this.




Do you understand average solar radiation and wind speed over periods? In any case, no-one is proposing this is the whole solution, the perfect solution does not exist.


They don't. They make a very minor contribution to London not being flooded.


And not worry about London flooding?


Could it be that those who oppose these measures are worried about their nice profits being dented? And have no concept of risk management, scientific evidence, or caring about anyone other than themselves?

Short-term demand management, if implemented so as to be invisible to the end user is not really energy rationing and if it is cheaper than the alternative of providing spare generating capacity then it could benefit consumers.

If my fridge stays cold but in the background its load is controlled to reduce peak electricity demand while still holding the required temperature, saving me money as a consumer what's the downside? I don't care if it switches on early at 16:00 for 30 minutes and then shuts down across the evening peak to reduce peak demand, all I want is a cold fridge!

I think it is the invisible bit which is missed, the focus is on the Grid but for the demand management technology to take off it needs consumer goods manufacturers to incorporate it, almost invisibly or effortlessly from a consumer point of view, into their products.

That opens a whole range of issues like how do you pay/incentivise the manufacturers to incorporate demand management technology? How do you incentivise consumers to operate their appliances in demand management modes - we've got the crude Economy 7 system but if we're talking about managing demand across the day how do you do it? Half-hourly metering/charging?

Many of the answers are here http://www.davidhirst.com/elec...mFrequencyPaperv06.pdf

-------------------------
David Hirst

Here's a graph of global average temperatures since 1998 - measured by the RSS satellites:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998
That's no warming for 14 years - despite an 11% rise in the (trace) level of CO2 over the same period.


By what measure is it getting worse?

Polar Bear population is at a record high. Whales and fish stocks are recovering. In Europe and North America the area set aside for forests and wilderness is increasing. Rivers, lakes and air quality are all improving since rich countries can afford to devote money to conservation and environmental protection. Compare that to poor countries where the population are struggling just to survive resulting in deforestation and decimation of wildlife. Matt Ridley points out that economic development leads to a switch from taking resources from living nature (wood for cooking, animals for eating or wearing) to using resources that no other species needs or wants (iron ore, oil, uranium, radio frequencies). Admittedly - the rush to destroy rainforest to grow biofuels is a new and serious threat - but apart from that, things are definitely improving for the natural world.


Yes. Do you? During some of the coldest winter periods an anti-cyclone can be stuck over the UK for weeks on end - during which time winds are practically zero and many solar panels will be covered in snow. You profess to 'care about people other than yourself' but you don't seem to care about those old age pensioners forced to choose between heating and eating by daft green measures which inflate energy prices and endanger security of supply during the freezing winter months.


How minor? Let's do a quick calculation: For the sake of argument let's assume the IPCC worst case prediction of 59cm sea level rise by 2100 is correct (despite the fact it's been rising at less than 3mm/yr for hundreds of years (=26cm by 2100). And let's assume this rise is entirely due to man-made CO2 (which it clearly isn't since it's been rising at a steady rate since the Little Ice Age - long before man started emitting CO2)

The UK contributes 1.7% of man-made CO2 emissions. So if we reduce our 1.7% by 30% - that's a 0.5% reduction in global emissions. ( Ignoring the fact that the annual increase in China's emissions is almost twice the entire UK emissions. )

So with the most generous assumptions possible (some would say ridiculous assumptions), the sea-level rise we might avert by 2100 (at a cost of £18Bn pa) is 0.5% of 59cm = 3mm.

Do you think it might be more cost effective to upgrade the Thames flood barrier?

Good points ADJONES and DrHirst.

I have no objection to load-management measures that make economic sense and which have no impact on the quality of service delivered by a product. I think these can be justified on their own merits without the need to invoke the junk science of man-made global warming.

My concern is that these measures represent the thin end of an anti-free market, anti-human green wedge. An agenda now being pursued by the UK & EU Government, (with the support of institutions like the IET), that will lead to harmful and unnecessary energy rationing and unjustified energy price increases.