FW: Tory peer attempts to kill UK onshore wind industry.

[denis stephens]

-----Original Message-----
From: denis stephens [mailto:denis.s...@btinternet.com]
Sent: 31 August 2010 18:38
To: 'Matt.p...@europeanclimate.crg'
Subject: RE: Tory peer attempts to kill UK onshore wind industry.

Matthew

Thank you for the attached and the time that you have taken.

There are many sources that discuss future senarios for an energy mix.

You say "My points are a reductio ad absurdum" but I have never suggested
an electricity system made up of just 100% wind or 100% nuclear.

I am however very clear that thousands of wind turbines marching across the
British country side is not environmentally justifiable. If you put them
offshore I have no problem except the subsidy to make them economic with gas
or other conventional forms of electricity generation is excessive.

I am also not convinced that the political situation is such that we in the
UK should rely for our electrical power on renewable supplies located in
other countries several hundreds if not thousands of miles from our shores.
You may think I have a "little Britain" outlook but this again is not true.
What I do believe in is self sufficiency. The French have obviously decided
that this is the right way forward.

My question was to Andrew Smith whom I felt was anti nuclear. I still await
his reply in the form of a simple table for the UK.

Regards

Denis Stephens

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Phillips
Sent: 30 August 2010 11:41
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Tory peer attempts to kill UK onshore wind industry.

Dear Denis,

You can find a very intensive analysis of the different scenarios for
European electricity decarbonisation at Roadmap2050.eu. This analysis sought
to address the points you raise about reliability and economics. It compares
plausible scenarios for the power sector for Europe with shares of RES
between 40% and 100% and the rest of the % made up of CCS and nuclear in
equal share. The requirement of each of these scenarios is that it must be
fully decarbonised and as reliable as today's European average. In economic
terms it concludes each scenario costs about the same (including all the
back-up & transmission requirements in the scenarios with high share of
RES).

Your points are a reductio ad absurdum - no-one, be they an enthusiast for
nuclear or wind, can plausibly be suggesting an electricity network made up
100% of just wind or just nuclear. What is at issue is the relative shares
of the different technologies and how they might interact. You can be
reassured high RES scenarios can be as reliable as today's network. This is
more affordable if you interconnect more over wider geographical areas and
invest in DSM - but overall your network is more vulnerable (in economic
terms) to the cost of capital. If on the other hand you want a high nuclear
and CCS outcome then your network is more vulnerable to fossil prices and
the industrial challenges over nuclear.

Whether you are pro or anti-nuclear in principle, one major issue frequently
raised about the technology is its industrial scaleability over the next 40
years. Many think it will be stretch for nuclear to reach replacement scale
in Europe (nuclear is presently 30% of supply). Likewise many think CCS is
likely to happen but that its scale is uncertain and may therefore not be
able to achieve 30% of Europe's supply. It might make sense strategically
therefore to prepare now for large scale RES (as well as to drive demand
reduction measures). This will necessarily include wind, but also many other
technologies and there are particular benefits to be achieved at a European
scale through the counter-cyclicality of wind 'from the North' and solar
'from the South'.

It is unlikely that there will be no nuclear on the European network because
France is very aggressive in pursuit of the technology.

Your points about subsidy are important for people to engage on. Subsidy for
fossil fuels is very much greater than for RES around the World. I haven't
time to chase down the link, but Bloomberg New Energy Finance recently
reported fossil subsidy is ten times greater than that for fossil. I would
be surprised if this is accurate, fossil subsidies are notoriously difficult
to pin down as most are hidden - like the tax breaks for offshore oil
exploration around the UK. Indeed there have been many longstanding
subsidies for fossil through the socialisation of costs such as securing
supply chains, pollution, extraction impact etc. Likewise there is no
example anywhere in the World of nuclear being built without subsidy. Indeed
that is why the nuclear industry now want ROCs equivalent to offshore wind
to subsidise new nuclear in the UK.

In the short term the 'economic' option to build - for utilities - is an
increasingly close run between CCGT and wind. CCGT is 'cheap' because capex
is relatively low and fossil and carbon prices are given a haircut by
utilities when investment decisions are made - the risk of fossil and carbon
price inflation is passed to customers.

So on Reay's private members bill, I'm afraid the result of restrictions on
wind will be more reliance on fossil fuels with all the economic and energy
security implications that follow. It would have no impact on bringing on
nuclear - it is only subsidy that would do that.

Cheers

Matt

Matt Phillips
Senior Associate
European Climate Foundation

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jérôme
Guillet
Sent: 28 August 2010 14:28
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tory peer attempts to kill UK onshore wind industry.

Denis

See this article: The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind
(http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/5/1/174635/6513)
As to backup, did you not see the recent link circulated in this list which
show that wind will be required to subsidize backup costs for nuclear...?
(http://www.businessgreen.com/articles/print/2268599)
As to the countryside, it's usually spoiled more by ugly farm buildings,
roads and power lines than wind farms...

Le 27 août 2010 à 11:26, denis stephens a écrit :

> Andrew
>
>
> Not all of us are keen to see our countryside visually spoiled by massive
> wind turbines and our near environment disturbed by the thumping noise
when
> they are in close proximity.
>
> I think you overstate the value of wind turbines. The electricity is of
> high cost and as it needs full backup is of low value. On shore turbines
> are running at about £1.3 bn per GW of capacity or £5 bn per GW of output.
> This is not cheap and extracts a substantial subsidy from all of us
through
> the RO. The cost also does not refect the cost of the backup.
>
> I would suggest that the bill is constructive for the environment in which
> we live.
>
> On another tack my impession is that you are anti nuclear and therfore I
> would be very pleased if you would provide a simple table showing the
energy
> mix that you would propose to ensure that the 2050 target of an 80%
> reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the generation of electricity
is
> to be met. I would hope that the table would be realistic and not assume
a
> massive reduction in demand and a consequent restriction on our activities
> and hence progress.
>
> Regards
>
> Denis Stephens
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew
Smith
> Sent: 26 August 2010 11:07
> To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Tory peer attempts to kill UK onshore wind industry.
>
> A Tory peer is attempting to kill the UK onshore wind industry.
> Britain has the best onshore wind resource in Europe. It offers us a
> huge chunk of cheap, quick-to-deploy zero-carbon energy, and would give
> Britain a huge lead in decarbonisation and in building one of the
> leading industries of the 21st Century. This bill is destructive to the
> climate and to UK plc.
>
> From this week's re News - Renewable Energy News - issue 198, date 26
> August 2010:
>
> "Conservative peer Lord Reay's Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances
> from Residential Premises) Bill has gone through its first reading ...
> Preliminary calculations by consultancy ADAS indicate more than 96% of
> land would be off limits"
>
> The bill attempts to put buffers of 1km for turbines of height 25-50m,
> 1.5km for turbines 50-100m, a 2km for turbines 100-150m high, and a 3km
> buffer for turbines over 150m. Height is defined as ground to the
> highest blade tip. The bill proposes that turbines must be refused
> planning permission if there was any residential property within the
> buffer zone, unless every affected resident provided written consent.
> The bill is on the parliament website here: http://j.mp/cDyAlm
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to
energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to
energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

[Andrew Smith]

Denis Stephens wrote:

> My question was to Andrew Smith whom I felt was anti nuclear. I
> still await his reply in the form of a simple table for the UK.

Answered many months ago Denis, on the Claverton lists - long before you
asked the question. Either you took no notice last time, in
which case repeating it would be pointless; or you did take notice, in
which case repeating it would be redundant. However, you can find lots
of other examples, in the work of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, McKinseys,
ZCB, ECF, and others.

But the premise of your question was wrong anyway. You wrote:

> 2050 target of an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the
> generation of electricity

That's not the target. I commend to you the reports of the Committee on
Climate Change for further information. Once you know what the targets
actually are, I look forward to seeing your proposals to address them.

Regard,
Andrew

[denis stephens]

Andrew

Thank you for your unhelpfull reply attached below.

My use of the figure of 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emmissions from the
generation of electricity is a simplification because if the UK is to meet
its legally binding target of an 80% reduction in all green house gas
emmsiions by 2050 (Climate change act 2008) the actual reduction required
from the electricity sector is much higher.

I would still like to see your simple table showing how the electricity
sector would meet this target.

Please enlighten me.

Regards

Denis Stephens

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Smith

Denis Stephens wrote:

Regard,
Andrew

--

[Herbert Eppel]

On 31.08.2010 23:19 UK Time, denis stephens wrote:

> I am however very clear that thousands of wind turbines marching across the
> British country side is not environmentally justifiable.

Denis

It is clear that you don't like the look of wind turbines for some
reason, but your personal opinion doesn't make them environmentally
unjustifiable.

I take it you are aware that each windfarm application is subject to a
pretty rigorous environmental assessment?

Many observers find wind turbines visually appealing and perfectly
compatible with the largely man-made British countryside.

You may be interested to know that I am member of several heritage and
nature conservation organisations (including CPRE), but I see no
conflict between that and being a pro-wind campaigner.

You may also be interested in having a look at the photographs taken by
Jonathan Clark (see bottom of Pro Wind Alliance website at
<http://prowa.org.uk/>). It is worth pointing out that Jonathan became
interested in wind power from a purely aesthetic angle. See also his
"fear of the new" letter at
<http://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/letters/Does-concern-stem-from-a.5016462.jp>

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Peter Rowberry]

I strongly support Herbert's view (who would have guessed) that wind
turbines are not only a vital part of our energy infrastructure, but in the
right place an improvement to the visual landscape. Having just returned
from a visit to Austria and Germany it is noticeable that there are no wind
turbines in the tourist parts of the Tyrol, but many more in the lower
plains. However, solar panels in the Tryol are common place, even on older
housing stock. In Germany you cannot travel for more that a few miles
through the western part of Germany and the Mosel without seeing large scale
wind farms. What people rather have in their local Area of Outstanding
natural beauty? A wind farm or a nuclear power station? Please only answer
"both" if you can prove that both are needed!

[Dave Elliott]

To try to  clear the air , Ive just abstracted a table from CATs new 'Zero Carbon Britian' which shows their proposed mix to get to near zero emissions by 2030. Sorry, Denis asked for 2050- but they get there before that!

Energy generation in 2030 TWh

Offshore wind                              615.0

Onshore wind                               75.0

Fixed tidal                                        36.0

Wave and tidal stream                        39.5

Hydro                                                   7.2

PV solar                                               4.4

Biogas                                         24.1

Syn-Gas (bio-char)                           2.19

Biomass CHP (elec)                             31.4

Nuclear (residual)                                   7.5

Solar  Hot water                           24.0

Biomass heat                               53.0

Biomass CHP (heat)                            19.0

Biogas heat                                  4.0

Heat Pumps  ( elec from wind)           148.0

It also assumes a 55% cut in energy use and a switch to electric vehicles, which is where much of the offshore wind power goes.

See www.cat.org.uk

The recent Public Interest Reseach Centre Offshore Valuation suggested puts the total practical offshore wind, wave and tidal resource at 2131 TWh p/a (six times current electricity use) and calculates that, using 29% of the total resource, by 2050, the UK could have 169 GW of offshore capacity, supplying 610 TWh, equivalent to total electricity consumption by that time, making the UK a  potential net electricity exporter.

Under a more ambitious scenario, utilizing 76% of the resource, by 2050 there would be 406 GW of offshore capacity generating 1,610 TWh- about equal to UK energy demand (not just the electricity demand) expected then.

See: www.offshorevaluation.org/   

I could go on, but for comparison, here are DECC's National Renewable Energy Action Plan targets for 2020:

 * Hydro- 2.13GW;  6,369GWh

* Solar PV- 2.68GW;  2,240GWh

* Wave and tidal- 1.3GW;  3,950GWh

* Onshore wind- 14.89GW; 34,150 GWh

* Offshore wind- 12.99GW; 44,120 GWh

* Biomass - 4.24GW; 26,160 GWh

                Total capacity 38.21GW

             Total energy 116970GWh

Dave Elliott

--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[Andrew Smith]

Denis wrote:

> I would still like to see your simple table showing how the electricity
> sector would meet this target.
>
> Please enlighten me.

Happy to help: please let me know your budget. I've done this stuff for
free before now: as that didn't sink in with you, I'll charge for it
next time, given that people value something more, when they pay for it.

Some targets:

* 15% of all energy from renewables by 2020. That's the UK's share of
the EU 20-20-20 targets.

* 20% (stretch target 30%) reductions in CO2e by 2020, from 1990
emissions. That's the current EU 2020 emissions target.

* 1.7% annual carbon reductions over the first three budget periods for
the Interim (currently legislated) budget; 2.6% for the Intended
(following a new global deal) budget. Those are the UK Climate Change
Act / CCC targets.

* Max 120g CO2e/kWh for GB grid power by 2030. That's the current best
estimate (CCC 2009 progress report) to deliver the 2050 80% economy-wide
target. Those emissions are at point of generation, not full-lifecycle
basis; but that's another discussion.

Hope this helps.

So - can you meet those without a radical expansion in onshore wind?

No, thought not.

And all the indications from climate science are that those targets do
not deliver reductions fast enough to avoid high risk of very expensive
damage, meaning that (because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure) we need faster decarbonisation than outlined above.

Regards,
Andrew

[jo abbess]

Dear Clavertonians,

If any DE-EN bilingual one of you has some headspace to help Energy Bulletin translate a German military study on Peak Oil, I'm sure they'd appreciate it :-

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-01/german-military-study-warns-potentially-drastic-oil-crisis

Published Sep 1 2010 by Der Spiegel (Germany), Archived Sep 1 2010

German military study warns of a potentially drastic oil crisis

by Stefan Schultz

A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis.

... The issue is so politically explosive that it's remarkable when an institution like the Bundeswehr, the German military, uses the term "peak oil" at all. But a military study currently circulating on the German blogosphere goes further.

The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimes-dramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.

The study, whose authenticity was confirmed to SPIEGEL ONLINE by sources in government circles, was not meant for publication. The document is said to be in draft stage and to consist solely of scientific opinion, which has not yet been edited by the Defense Ministry and other government bodies...

Original article :-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

Study :-

http://peak-oil.com/download/Peak%20Oil.%20Sicherheitspolitische%20Implikationen%20knapper%20Ressourcen%2011082010.pdf

http://www.doxtop.com/browse/c5852bcd/peak-oil-sicherheitspolitische-implikationen-knapper-ressour.aspx

jo.

+44 77 17 22 13 96

http://www.joabbess.com

[Jérôme Guillet]

The English version of the article is here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

-- 

[jo abbess]

Hi Guys,

Thanks to Jerome for the link to the English version of the Der Spiegel article.

The Energy Bulletin want an English translation of the military study as well.

Cheers,

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com

---

From: jerome...@yahoo.fr
Subject: Re: German Translation : Military Study on Peak Oil
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 23:46:30 +0200
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

[Herbert Eppel]

See <http://groups.google.com/group/general-news-snippets/browse_thread/thread/553cca37c6a08946?hl=en>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Dave McG]

Hmmm…  sounds familiar

 

In about 2005 I think it was the Royal bank of Scotland released a similar analysis focusing solely on the economic consequences of peak oil.

 

There is a tradition to trash this concept due to a few false dawns of the crisis or the last time 2008 a postponement due to the financial crisis.

 

Any one looking at the raw data will confirm peak oil is not a concept but a reality.  It is probably a more serious threat to the world economy than the environmental risk.  If you take more from your ware house than you put in to it will empty.

 

Time and again the risk is belittled by the Canada oil shales, we always find more, enough coal and gas against rising world demand, dwindling new discoveries and an ageing workforce in the oil industry.

 

This is why I advocate fossil displacement over carbon mitigation.  Sure deploy every demand reduction measure but the remaining energy source displace.  All the technical issues regarding load balancing etc. are actually very simple.  The only issue we have to grapple with is when we start to pay for it and the price we are prepared to pay.

 

If there ain’t the oil there is no carbon to sequester

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Dave McGrath

 

Managing Director

ReGenTech Ltd

Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions

Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate

Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB

http://www.regentech.co.uk

Company Number SC211438

Tel +44 (0)1224 742938;  Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451

 

d...@regentech.co.uk

Skype: Davejmcg

MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal  Cert No. 1359

 

The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail

--

[Nick Balmer]

Hello David,

I believe this is a non-story, or more accurately a rehashing of a
story that is already well understood.

Peak Oil like Peak Coal was always going to come.

I am old enough to remember this being discussed in 1974.

What is a much greater concern is that while everybody is talking
about the need to make changes, very little is actually being done to
deliver in the UK to the the necessary changes, unlike the more
advanced and forward thinking countries in middle Europe.

The consequences of peak oil and its aftermath are going to be very
profound, just as the Bundeswehr and no-doubt West Point, St Cyr and
Sandhurst students are all being taught.

There are many solutions available to displace oil and fossil fuels,
and the only people who have anything to fear from this change are
those whose sole business is linked to oil.

The Arabs who are closest to this have known this for decades. That's
why they are investing so much in things like Harrods and so many non
oil businesses.

Our biggest challenge is being prepared to make changes. It is not as
if we are pioneers in any of this.

You can go and see all that is required fully implemented less that
500 miles east of here.

Many countries in Europe like Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, and
Germany are far beyond us.

The countries that were excluded from the oil club, have had to make
the changes much earlier. They are now reaping the rewards of their
forethought, whereas countries like our own "cursed" with oil and now
well behind.

This is very apparent in our lack lustre recovery out of the recession
compared with countries with high take up of energy conservation and
renewable technologies.

Countries like our own dominated by oil business and with a government
Treasury hooked on revenues from North Sea and oil taxation have
become beholden to those industries. This dependants has meant that
for far too long these bodies with short term results in view have
avoided the issue of breaking this dependants.

Like Junkies hooked on drugs they know do them no good ultimately, but
unable to make the courageous step through cold turkey.

A very serious crunch will come for those companies and our government.

We have all seen from the disaster in the Gulf this summer just how
important BP is to our pension incomes.

Now consider how much you spend at the petrol pump every time you fill
up on petrol, and how much of that is actually tax.

Remove those two sources of income and you have a huge reduction in
both government and personal incomes.

It is quite possible to change this around by re-balancing our economy
around energy reduction and renewables. In order to do this we need to
spend about what is being wasted on aircraft carriers and defence
projects to jump start thousands of projects like those under way in
Southampton, Aberdeen, Gussing, Malmo, Utrecht, Lille, Den Haag,
Copenhagen, and thousands of other communities across Europe.

Oddly enough doing this would go a long way towards reducing much of
the tension that leads us towards needing aircraft carriers in the
first place.

Once the seeds were laid and the first projects finished the community
at large would understand that what was being proposed was quite
harmless, didn't make odd noises or flicker.

Private capital would flood in and within 20 years we would wonder why
those odd people ever used oil, just like when people changed over
from steam trains to diesel, or horses to cars.

Nick Balmer

[Herbert Eppel]

On 02.09.2010 08:06 UK Time, Nick Balmer wrote:

> The consequences of peak oil and its aftermath are going to be very
> profound, just as the Bundeswehr and no-doubt West Point, St Cyr and
> Sandhurst students are all being taught.

See also
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427332.700-fix-climate-change-or-else-say-military-top-brass.html>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[dave andrews]

Maybe Herbert, who has translated the CZisch thesis can do this.

Dave A

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

--

David Andrews

UK Sales Representative

3 Victoria Place

Combe Down

Bath BA25EY

United Kingdom

Tel.:+44 (0)1225 837 978

Mob: +44 (0)755 265 9166
http://www.etra33.si
uk.kolek...@gmail.com

[Herbert Eppel]

No need on this occasion, but please feel free to contact me re. other translation requirements in future :-)

Regards

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[jo abbess]

Hey Herbert,

You wrote "No need on this occasion". Can you please point me to the place where the English translation of the military study is.

(I know where the English translation of the newspaper article is, because Jerome pointed it out).

Thanks for your help,

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com

---

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:41:02 +0100
From: He...@HETranslation.co.uk
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: German Translation : Military Study on Peak Oil

[Dave McG]

Well said Nick

Except to say this is a "non story" could be perhaps misleading. A non
story to those who have studied and understand these risks. The trouble is
most people neither know about it nor understand, so for them it is a big
revelation.

There remains s significant Claverton Lobby who either cannot accept this
scenario or unwilling for whatever reason to even consider it may be
possible, safe in their faith the future is fine.

Whilst many fret about marginal efficiencies and cost effectiveness the rest
of the world moves ahead.

UK PLC is ill, very ill. If we ask the wrong questions we will mis-diagnose
and solutions offered will make the patient more ill.

When the oil is gone its gone. Or when sufficient fossil displacement is
occurring and people discover they no longer need oil then the price will
drop and he NS will be wiped out.

Many will remain addicted to the cheaper oil whilst the developed "Energy"
world China, India Scandinavia et all will be marching on with growing
employment on new energy technologies.

Yours Sincerely,

Dave McGrath

Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions
Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Company Number SC211438
Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451

d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg
MCS Acreditted for Wind, PV and Solar Thermal Cert No. 1359

The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may
be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Nick Balmer
Sent: 02 September 2010 08:07
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: German Translation : Military Study on Peak Oil

Hello David,

Nick Balmer

--

[Herbert Eppel]

Hi Jo

Yes, Jerome pointed out the English translation of the Spiegel article, and I had already posted it in the "Claverton general news snippets" yesterday.

I didn't realise you are interested in an English version of the actual study - sorry about the confusion.

I'll look into it and get back to you.

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[jo abbess]

Hi Clavertonians,

My view on Peak Oil is that it is the tip of the iceberg - and I know that's a totally inappropriate metaphor.

The art of petrogeology dictates that right on the heels of Peak Oil is Peak Natural Gas, and there is strong evidence for Peak Coal. In the US for example, I understand there is very little good hard anthracite left.

My position is that - since the "conventional" Fossil Fuels are depleting, there are strong moves towards the "unconventionals", the shale gas, the deepwater oil, the smoky "half peat", the Lake Baikal hydrates, the frozen subsea wastes of the Arctic and so on. People argue for "stop-gap" energy resources, but they carry with them huge risks not only to the Climate, but also the the Economy with the step-change in EROI/EROEI and the "clean-up" costs.

My take on this is that pretending that Peak Conventionals doesn't exist leaves a veil in front of most peoples' minds - they believe in the Power of Technology to supply all their Fossil Fuel needs, now and into the future - it's just that the actual location and form and dirtiness of these new resources will be different than in the past.

And here's the rub - we need to encourage people to think about the "alternatives", or rather, the "solutions".

The only way forward is Renewable, Sustainable Energy resources, because of Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas and so on, and if people do not learn about that, they will not understand the privation for most people that will surely come with Peak Conventionals.

You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels. The risks of Peak Conventionals surely have to be linked in with the risks of abrupt Climate Chaos, in my mind, when finding ways to communicate and discuss policy options.

Do the energy companies have the right to expand into unconventionals, when this risks the general economic health of the industrialised countries (and the Climate) ? There are limits to what private enterprise should be permitted to innovate, we all accept that.

If the only way forward for Big Energy is yet more risk-prone marine options and very dirty, energy-wasting mixed sedimentary deposits, then people might need to know this in order to understand they need to politically ask for it to stop.

Just a thought (stream),

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.joabbess.com

[Herbert Eppel]

Hi Jo

A quick analysis of the PDF file suggests that the study has just under 30,000 words (plus diagrams etc.), and a proper translation would therefore be a substantial task.

If anyone is prepared to pay for it I would be delighted to get on the case.

Meanwhile, the two older English documents available at <http://tinyurl.com/Bundeswehr-Oil> may be of interest.

Best wishes

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Frank Holland]

Jo,

This was all foreseen in The Limits to Growth published in 1972. Old
timers like me have been watching the LtG forecasts unfold as society,
egged on by big business, carried on with business as usual.

Graham Turner at CSIRO has kept records since 1972 and he reports that
the LtG standard model, based on BAU, is being followed almost exactly,
and we are in for very very severe problems between now and 2020.

So as Dave McG says while many fiddle with debates about wind/CHP/nuke
etc we are on a road to disaster.

I hope Peak Oil etc is discussed by the Claverton team when they meet
Huhne, although I doubt that the rich playboys in the ConDems give a
damn about Peak oil and it's effects on the lesser mortals in UK PLC.

Frank

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion-group
> +unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dave McG]

Could not have put it better.  Peak fossil will deal with carbon emissions.

 

If the investment in unconventionals were mandated by governments to be channelled to the renewables then we would banish fossil in quick measure.

 

Fossils are the enemy of our economic survival now not the solution, it happens it is environmentally destructive both in CO2 emissions and disruption/destruction in virgin and fragile territories

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Dave McGrath

[Nick Balmer]

Hello David,

At the company I work for many of my colleagues are working on
projects for developing business plans for and designing and
eventually building major manufacturing plants for one of our key
industries, and one where we have prided ourselves until quite
recently on making World breaking developments.

These plants produce things that are bought and sold around the globe,
the factories can and are built around the World.

I have been contributing renewable energy input into some of the plant
appraisals.

For reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot divulge the
projects or outcomes, but I can say that it makes dire reading for me
to see the economics of building the factories, but especially for the
25 year running a state of the art manufacturing plant when compared
between Britain, Brazil, Singapore or China.

I have little doubt where the least attractive site for one of these
plants currently is, and it is grim for me because I happen to know
that if these get built it will kick the feet out from under quite a
large community not far from where I live.

There are lots of things it is hard to see making more than marginal
cost improvements on, like labour or surprisingly building materials.

However there is one item, energy that is by far and away the biggest
area where we could quickly bring in economies by changing over to
renewables.

The trouble is that in order to re-gain UK competitiveness we need to
do this not just in the new factory, but in the workers and the rest
of our societies homes as well.

We need to bring our cost of living right down.

We need to up our private disposable income considerably.

I don't know what the average family discretionary disposable income
is in the UK after utility bills, housing costs, and food and
transport is, but I read recently that in the USA it is less than $400
per year and falling.

If we could bring our household energy bills down from around £1350
per year towards the £65 to £100 that the best Austria housing pays we
could double discretionary disposable income greatly.

It is loss of consumer confidence and spending that is driving our
economy into the continuing recessionary spiral.

I don't know if anybody has a breakdown of the amount of monies we
send abroad annually out of our economy on oil, but if just 25% of
that huge sum was spent instead on growing non food crops inside our
own economy the effect on that economy would be profound.

Rural incomes would go up, employment would go up. About a 1,000 new
jobs a year in Burgenland which is the equivalent of Cambridge without
the city of Cambridge.

This is not pie in the sky. It is what is happening in places like
Burgenland and Lower Saxony.

If we were to approach this change with the same energy as went into
Cabling Britain, or the Switch to North Sea Gas, or even to approach
the levels of the airfield and armaments factory building programme
from 1937 to 1942 (700 airfields, in 7 years, when 14% of our adult
workforce was taken for the military) we could make a huge difference
in a very short time.

2010 to 2017. Job done. Many thousands of people brought back into
work rebuilding and refitting our existing housing stock. Thousands
more building plants, and then many thousands more in long term
running of plants.

A much healthier economy, and much more balanced one, and a sustainable one.

Nick Balmer

[Andrew Smith]

> You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem
> (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based
> on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels

Except that the peak conventional argument is also the argument used for
unlocking EOR, shale, tar sands: all dirty, energy-inefficient,
environmentally destructive, climate-disastrous ...
So a peak of production in conventional fossil fuels cannot fix the
climate on its own: it may make things worse, if it allows the expansion
of unconventional fossil fuels.

Andrew

[Dave McG]

Frank

Claverton has for as long as I have been a member had a hardcore
consistently arguing against peak oil and against wholesale displacement of
fossil in our energy mix on the basis of short term economics and obsession
about efficiency.

If this is the position of group that is meeting with Huhne I have concerns.
I do not know if this is the case.

Do not invest in CCS shut the power station down. Ironically we have
everything in place to eradicate fossils and quickly we lack only the
desire. The economic case in employment, particularly the young alone is
compelling. Jobs will be created in outlying communities rebalancing
populations demographics I could go on.

But mean time our young bright things scarper to the rest of the world,
where these things are happening, whilst we suck I ever more economic
migrants of all colours, faiths and countries and relatively small % of
talent says he having employed some brilliant foreign youngsters.

[Dave McG]

"Except that the peak conventional argument is also the argument used for
unlocking EOR, shale, tar sands: all dirty, energy-inefficient,"

Sure if you allow this. Government can mandate and prevent this, as a
society we can demand it is stopped and prevented.

This same cash invested unconventional could be deployed now elsewhere

Because when these resources are depleted we have the same issue coming at
us only faster. With likely hood the rest of the world has passed us by and
UK PLC is fossil junkie basket case

Just get the job done

Yours Sincerely,

Dave McGrath

Andrew

--

[Herbert Eppel]

On 02.09.2010 12:17 UK Time, Dave McG wrote:

> ... obsession about efficiency.

Dave

I'm a little puzzled by this statement - do you feel like elaborating a
little?

Thank you.

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[jo abbess]

Hi Clavertonians,

It appears somebody has already had a crack at the main points :-

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6912

"German Military Study Warns of Potential Energy Crisis : Posted by Robert Rapier on September 2, 2010 - 10:30am : This week a study on peak oil by a German military think tank was leaked on the Internet. The document shows that the German government is closely studying the issue of peak oil, and is aware of the potential for serious consequences as oil production declines. The study is reminiscent of the Hirsch Report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, that warned of the risks posed by peak oil. The document warns of the potential for regional shortages, market failures, and a shift in political power toward those capable of exporting oil. This report describes potential outcomes that require planning and preparation. The scenarios outlined in the paper are exactly the kinds of drivers that lead me to advocate for greater regional energy self-sufficiency. The report clearly lays out just how vulnerable Europe will be because of its continuing dependence upon Russia for both oil and gas, and notes that Russia will be in a very strong political bargaining position as a result. The report can be accessed from the popular German paper Der Spiegel in this story: Bundeswehr-Studie warnt vor dramatischer Ölkrise. The report is so far only available in German, and while Ich spreche ein wenig Deutsch (I speak a little German), I am not fluent enough to capture the essence of the report. (Der Spiegel has summarized the report in English now: Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis). However, I have a friend who is both fluent in German (his native tongue) and passionate about peak oil outreach. Given a week, I could probably translate the report. My friend (who didn't want to be identified) did it overnight. Below is his translation of the major points in the report..."

Regards,

jo.

+44 77 17 22 13 96

http://www.joabbess.com

Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:26:35 +0100

From: He...@HETranslation.co.uk

To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: German Translation : Military Study on Peak Oil

Hi Jo

A quick analysis of the PDF file suggests that the study has just under 30,000 words (plus diagrams etc.), and a proper translation would therefore be a substantial task.

If anyone is prepared to pay for it I would be delighted to get on the case.

Meanwhile, the two older English documents available at <http://tinyurl.com/Bundeswehr-Oil> may be of interest.

Best wishes

Herbert Eppel

www.HETranslation.co.uk

On 02.09.2010 09:58 UK Time, Herbert Eppel wrote:

Hi Jo

Yes, Jerome pointed out the English translation of the Spiegel article, and I had already posted it in the "Claverton general news snippets" yesterday.

I didn't realise you are interested in an English version of the actual study - sorry about the confusion.

I'll look into it and get back to you.

Herbert Eppel

www.HETranslation.co.uk

On 02.09.2010 09:51 UK Time, jo abbess wrote:

Hey Herbert,

You wrote "No need on this occasion". Can you please point me to the place where the English translation of the military study is.

(I know where the English translation of the newspaper article is, because Jerome pointed it out).

Thanks for your help,

jo.

+44 77 17 22 13 96

http://www.joabbess.com

[ca...@f2s.com]

Dear all,

I was recently "in the Nimbies' Den" and, in my experience, what they really
don't like is the feeling that large and already too-rich corporations are
making too much money out of the enterprise, which impinges on the landscape
but doesn't let local people share meaningfully (e.g. lower electricity bills,
part-ownership of the new infrastructure, etc) in the benefits. There is
usually a "community fund" or somesuch, but because it's not connected with the
asset itself people just look on it as a bribe.

Contrast with the M6, for example: it's undeniably large, ugly, non-stationary
(at least, the traffic on it is) and noisy. No-one objected to its being built,
however, because it is a national asset and brings at least some benefit to
everyone in the area. Or to put it in more detail:

http://spaceandspaceability.blogspot.com/2010/08/someone-elses-backyard.html

Cheers,

Candy

Quoting Herbert Eppel <He...@HETranslation.co.uk>:

> On 31.08.2010 23:19 UK Time, denis stephens wrote:
>
> > I am however very clear that thousands of wind turbines marching across the
> > British country side is not environmentally justifiable.
>
> Denis
>
> It is clear that you don't like the look of wind turbines for some
> reason, but your personal opinion doesn't make them environmentally
> unjustifiable.
>
> I take it you are aware that each windfarm application is subject to a
> pretty rigorous environmental assessment?
>
> Many observers find wind turbines visually appealing and perfectly
> compatible with the largely man-made British countryside.
>
> You may be interested to know that I am member of several heritage and
> nature conservation organisations (including CPRE), but I see no
> conflict between that and being a pro-wind campaigner.
>
> You may also be interested in having a look at the photographs taken by
> Jonathan Clark (see bottom of Pro Wind Alliance website at
> <http://prowa.org.uk/>). It is worth pointing out that Jonathan became
> interested in wind power from a purely aesthetic angle. See also his
> "fear of the new" letter at
> <http://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/letters/Does-concern-stem-from-a.5016462.jp>
>
> Regards
>
> Herbert Eppel
> www.HETranslation.co.uk
>

[Chris Cook]

Candy

Absolutely spot on.

I'm not a big fan of some of the big onshore wind developments for aesthetic reasons, but that's a personal view, and there's many other types of energy project that run into community resistance much of which would evaporate with greater community participation.

I do rather enjoy seeing turbines dotted around the landscape the way the Danes have done it, and the way that windmills used to be historically. So I was a great admirer of Maitland Mackie's 'Wingen' plan for land owners to work with communities to install thirty thousand or so community turbines around the country. I spent an enjoyable afternoon (well, I enjoyed it) up there at his farm in rural Scotland - in the shadow of his three turbines - explaining why I thought genetically modified companies aka Industrial and Provident Societies (IPS) simply would not work.

Unfortunately he pursued that conventional Co-operative option in search of his £10m investment target, and ran foul of the fact that investors in an IPS cannot put in more than £20k each (an amount which is relatively small beer to quite a few of the 90,000 farmers he was targeting, not to mention anyone else).

So his admirable plan hit the buffers, but IMHO it is still there to do, particularly if - as I advocate -

http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/social-investment-mechanism-12-03-09

a partnership model is used wherein developers participate as service provider partners rather than as the conventional transaction driven carpet-bagging "Four Bs" development approach - Buy, Borrow, Build and Bugger Off - which so alienates communities, as you rightly say.

Best Regards

Chris

[Dave McG]

On many occasions I have put forward suggestions that particularly where we
have stranded resources we can electrolyse and store using locally when
needs require. Also having such a store locally allows use of the stored
energy for portable energy, like local transport. Round trip efficiency of
wind to H2 to FC car is not fantastic but perhaps better than using oil.

There is a lobby that continually shouted down this proposition as the round
trip efficiency from stored energy was relatively poor and it was more
"efficient" to ship the energy via wires to central conurbations. Taking
the resource away like this means locals still have to import fossils.

This is but one example. Claverton history is replete with similar
denunciations of proposals simply because it is less technically efficient
or capital efficient, missing the point that when the shit hits the fans,
efficiency will be the least of our worries.

Yours Sincerely,
Dave McGrath

Managing Director
ReGenTech Ltd
Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions

Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate
Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB
http://www.regentech.co.uk
Company Number SC211438

Tel +44 (0)1224 742938; Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451
d...@regentech.co.uk
Skype: Davejmcg

The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may

be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If
you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this
e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and
destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to
the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Herbert Eppel
Sent: 02 September 2010 15:41
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: German Translation : Military Study on Peak Oil

> ... obsession about efficiency.

Dave

Thank you.

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

--

[Frank Holland]

Go to http://www.psr.org/search.jsp?query=roussely+ ,click on IEER
Translation of the Roussely Report , then click on the pdf and read it.

A translation of the scathing report issued by former French government
official, Francois Roussely, on EDF, the fissures in the French nuclear
industry and the dismal prospects for the EPR reactor design.

After France's failure to win the contract for four nuclear power
plants in the United Arab Emirates, president Sarkozy ordered a
report on the French nuclear industry. The outline of the Roussely
report (named after Francois Roussely, a former EDF-president),
dated June 16, was made public –in French- by the Elysée Palace
on 27 July 2010

French nuclear industry: disastrous
economic and industrial results
The Roussely report recognizes the scale
of the setbacks experienced by Areva
and EDF at the EPR reactor construction
sites in France and Finland: “the
credibility of both the EPR model and the
French nuclear industry's ability to build
new reactors has been severely eroded
by the difficulties encountered at the
Finnish construction site of Olkiluoto and
at the site of the third tranche of the
Flamanville plant.” At fault is the
“complexity of the EPR” which “without
doubt hinders its construction and
consequently impacts on its cost.”

WOW!

Frank