Discussion > When the lights go out
I've said it here before, the idea that if we keep going with current environmental policies, then we're heading for economic tipping points, and mass disorder, and blah blah is just another brand of alarmism exactly the same as climate alarmism.
(...)
Jul 1, 2013 at 8:36 PM TheBigYinJames
BYIJ: I can't agree that discussing the possibility of mass disorder in response to severe economic downturn or prolonged power outage is "just another brand of alarmism". At very least, it makes sense to discuss it as a possibility and the potential dangers.
Civil disorder is something that really happens in the UK - it's not just an abstract possibility dreamt up by alarmists whose only confirmation is from Met Office computer models.
"Riots hit major cities across England during August 2011. They were sparked by the death of Mark Duggan in Tottenham, north London, who was shot dead by police on 4 August. A subsequent demonstration was broken up by police but clashes between demonstrators and police soon followed. Violence continued overnight in the area and nearby Wood Green. Similar scenes began to take place in the ensuing days in other areas of London, including Brixton, Hackney, Peckham, Battersea, Croydon and Ealing and then extended to other major urban areas in England. These included Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester as well as a number of other towns in what was described as 'copycat violence'. Five people were killed during the riots which also resulted in more than 3,000 arrests."
Is there any reason to think that the August 2011 disorder was the worst case possible? I can't see any reason to think that.
Martin A
Martin - it doesn't even have to be "mass disorder". Blackouts are an absolute gift for organised thieves and casual looters alike. I would hazard a guess that an awful lot of commercial premises' alarm systems are not backed up by generators. Plus, the cops will be busy with other things, so if you want to back a truck up to a warehouse and pillage the contents, there's a good chance you'll not be caught.
johanna
Martin,
I'm not saying that mass civil disturbance of the sort you are describing is impossible. It's absolutely possible, in the same sort of way that "climate disruption" is possible. it's an extreme outcome.
You may argue "we're closer than you might think" but then we're into the same sort of argument you get from an AGW alarmists when they say that extreme weather is "closer than you might think".
The mirror images of AGW theory and what I'd call Economically Triggered Societal Breakdown theory is stark, if you can stand back from the arguments for a second. In both cases, there is a political goal. In both, a stark and apocalyptic outcome if we don't act soon. In both, society sits around just waiting for this thing to happen and doesn't adapt in time. In both, we have appeals to "saving" something. They both rely heavily on science. Both sides are vocalised by a non-scientific minority who constantly mis-represent the science. Both sides suspect and accuse conspiracy.
I don't believe the stakes really aren't that high. I vote against ALL alarmism.
TheBigYinJames
TinyCO2
I think we are likely to be looking at something a bit more than the inconvenience of the winter of discontent.
Which is why, BigYin, I also think that (yes, I agree about the scaremongering) the possibility of civil unrest is not as unlikely as you might think.
We have not had any sort of civil disruption of the scale of the 1973 power cuts or the union action of 1979 since those days. I shouldn't need to go into any detail about how the world has changed in the last 30 years and most of those changes, in areas which we now take completely for granted, have been electrically powered.
Hector mentioned one very simple point in relation to power cuts in Japanese supermarkets — with no way of scanning the bar code and no price marked on the majority of products imagine the chaos that would ensue in a British supermarket!
I've already mentioned James Burke's Connections and the effects of a lack of power which he describes in the first episode. Even your diesel generator is useless if you run out of fuel since nowhere will you find a manual petrol pump. Your telephone is now almost certainly of the sort that requires a mains electrical supply to operate. Your mobile battery is good for how long? Your laptop for how long?
Virtually every mode of transport would come to a halt or at the very least be seriously disrupted — and road rage murders are by no means unknown in "normal" times!
The fact is that our reliance on a constant reliable electricity supply has increased immeasurably in the 30 years since Burke made that programme and if that supply is disrupted because of official incompetence or the fanaticism of a bunch of obsessive eco-luddites who should never have been allowed anywhere near the corridors of power then there will be repercussions.
That's not exaggerating or scaremongering; that's just understanding human nature.
Mike Jackson
Mike, I take your points, but I think the reality is that on the very first instance of capacity-induced blackouts, there will be so much of a backlash that something will be done at any cost.
In some ways (and I think some people here sense it) - the ONLY way for the govt to backtrack from its green nonsense if for it to be commanded to do so by an unruly electorate.
We all actually need a few days of blackouts to wake everybody up.
And I believe this is what will happen sometime in the next few years - it won't be a total breakdown scenario, but it'll be enough of a taster.
TheBigYinJames
I am with BYJ in decrying over-the-top alarmism but I would agree that frequent, unpredictable power cuts could easily lead to serious disorder. The obvious example is the riots/lootings mentioned earlier when the police were known to be holding off. When a cut hits, the police may not hear of problems due to phone failures. Getting anywhere could be difficult with traffic lights out. Would their radios work if the base lost power?
Somewhere like PC World is a prime example. When an outage hits they would have to open some emergency exits. All of the security systems would fail without back-up power: product tags; CCTV; alarms; mobiles; even landlines if they are cordless. The vultures would be there as soon as the lights went out. It would be the same for any store with high-value goods which are relatively small and portable.
mikeh
Your telephone is now almost certainly of the sort that requires a mains electrical supply to operate.
Jul 2, 2013 at 11:14 AM Mike Jackson
I recommend anyone whose phone(s) needs mains supply to work to get a 1970's rotary dial or push button phone at the very next car boot sale, check that it can make and receive calls, then leave it plugged in.
BigYin: but I think the reality is that on the very first instance of capacity-induced blackouts, there will be so much of a backlash that something will be done at any cost.
The problem is that the lead time for doing something - at no matter what cost - is significant.
Martin A
Yes, the lead time will make it much more expensive to do it then than it would if we started now, because they'd have to do it more quickly, and cover the gap by buying in capacity from abroad.
TheBigYinJames
Hopefully, our government has enough sense to keep the power stations that must be closed according to EU diktat in a state whereby they could be brought back to life again if necessary
Turning Tide
"....our government has enough sense..."
Any sense our government has on energy issues is below the detection level.
"On 22 March 2013, Didcot A closed and the de-commissioning process began." (Didcot Power Staiton Wikipedia)
Martin A
The point surely is that we know precisely what effects blackouts would have, if not the extent of them. They would be the result of a policy of not doing what we know how to do. We are not merely anticipating blackouts, we are (effectively) planning them through overt and deliberate actions. That is not quite the same as climate alarmism where the salient threat is actually unknown and we sceptics are mainly opposing the certainty of the other side over things which we perceive as far from certain. An uncertainty about what we are doing by carrying on as we always have. Nobody is planning to deliberately overheat the planet.
rhoda
I'm not sure about any of this.
Yes, I think there will be a reaction to major power cuts which I consider will be inevitable, UNLESS serious action is taken now and that has got to mean stopping the idiotic practice of closing down and decommissioning operable power stations unless and until proper replacement systems are on-line.
And what are the EU going to do if the UK does that? If Germany can get away with it then I see no reason why the British government should be any less successful in arguing its corner. (Actually, I do, but that is more to do with the adolescent spineless tossers that are running the place than any real reason.)
What I'm less sure of is how long those same ASTs can confuse the British public by loading the blame onto (a) the previous government, (b) the power generators, (c) anyone else that happens to be strolling past. Nor am I sure whether or not they actually know what it is they are asking the British public to put up with. I cannot make out whether Davey and Barker really believe that more and more wind turbines are the answer. In fact, after listening to some of the recent pronouncements coming out of DECC I can't work out what the policy is, what the aims are, and whether or not ministers are actually in charge.
The presence of environmental activists "on the platform" at DECC seminars fills me with horror, as does the fact that the public did not rise up there and then and eject him/her forcibly regardless of what side of the argument they felt themselves on. It is so contrary to proper practice it beggars belief and demonstrates just how far the people have been led up the global warming garden path. If it had been Phil Jones or Briffa at least it would have been someone moderately competent to speak on the subject!
Perhaps if people are prepared to accept that piece of blatant corruption of the governmental process then they will be docile enough to accept (nay, welcome even) the plans to "unpick the Industrial Revolution" and return us all to the delights of 17th century rural living.
Senior officials of NGOs and Royal Colleges excepted, of course.
Mike Jackson
During the late 1970s, in New South Wales, there was a brief political moment where boneheaded politicians had allowed the power generation system to fall into disrepair, resulting in blackouts.
The backlash was such that the power generation system was over-engineered to the point that bits of it sat idle for the next 30 years. Mind you, the unions were right in there, demanding lots of secure jobs and fat wages to deliver the result. It was wasteful and expensive. But at least it worked.
Anyway, I suspect that UK politicians are desensitised to what happens when people can't cook dinner, have a shower or watch TV when they get home. If they can get home. And that's just in summer.
johanna
And that's weird. Forget the riots in London (a mild metropolitan inconvenience at best) - do people remember the truckers dispute 8 or 9 years ago? Rolling roadblocks, refinery blockades, no petrol, supermarkets cleared out, medical staff unable to get to work.
Have politicians such a short memory?
I recall the power cuts in the 70s, the 3-day week etc. Back then, my dad got paid in pound notes in an envelope, so if the power was out, who cared. It was sort of exciting in a way. but fast forward 40 years and few of us ever see the money in our banks. We pay electronically, we communicate electronically, we do everything electronically.
Life will actually grind to a halt when the ATM network goes off.
TheBigYinJames
Exactly, BigYin
Life. Will. Actually. Grind. To. A. Halt.
And it's not just the ATMs. Fuel pumps won't work; supermarket checkouts won't work; traffic lights won't work; trains won't work; all the means we use to send and receive information won't work (except for those with a short-life battery that happens to be fully charged when the cut comes); central heating won't work.
Anything that relies an electronic clock will be thrown into chaos.
Almost every human activity (with the the one obvious exception!) relies to a greater or less extent on a continuing supply of electricity.
Do the numpties in Whitehall (or the Chief Numptie at the bottom of the Royal Mile) not understand that? Or do they not realise that energy-saving is not the answer? Have they never bothered to stop and think that loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and double-glazing have just about gone as far as they can realistically go and that if we had obeyed every injunction over the last 30+ years to turn our thermostats down one degree we'd all have died of hypothermia by now?
Or that in a modern civilised society an electricity supply is not an optional extra?
Mike Jackson
I don't mind debating AGW alarmism, so long as there is debate. It's an important part of life to think the worst and then decide what actions to curb it are sensible. The trouble with AGW is they're not really thinking about it. They're panicking and throwing money at the issue. Worse, they're not even succeeding in cutting CO2, ony reducing our generation security and out wild landscape. Lose, lose.
The worst can happen and maybe we're due serious civil unrest but equally problems like a power shortage can be solved with cash. I can even see certain businesses planning to make a profit by offering to cut production to ease power shortages. I also suspect the generators could get a mothballed plant back on a lot faster if the incentive is good enough.
More serious problems might result from cascade effects. Silly things like a business not shutting down because a key person can't be contacted to ok it. A really bad flu season (not a nightmare version, just the sort we saw in 1989/90) could really screw up production and decision making.
As yet they still haven't started the big push for new capacity - gas, coal or nuclear - so the time between the start of low capacity and a return to decent capacity pushes further into the future. In some ways this is not a bad thing because it might be the trigger to get on with fracking to make gas fired power stations finacially viable again.
Theoretically we can't prevent the closure of the old coal stations because the generators are running them flat out because a) coal is really cheap at the moment and b) they aren't treating them gently because they're going to close. In other words they're knackered.
The fuel crisis was instructive. It shows that panic can create problems you wouldn't have if supply was unthreatened.
TinyCO2
@Martin A
I used to have a great view of Didcot power station from my office window. If I still lived there, I think I'd be slightly sad to see it go.
Their website says:
Didcot A could generate 2,000MW of electricity - enough power to meet the needs of some 2 million households.
Didcot power station was something of a landmark in South Oxfordshire, though some people probably thought it spoilt the view. But I wonder how many wind turbines, and how many spoilt views, we'd need to replace it?
Turning Tide
I used to ride past Didcot power station four times a week in the train.
At 2000 MW, it would presumably need around 6000 wind turbines to replace it (with average output of 30% × max and 2MW max per turbine).
Though I don't think they have closed the whole shooting match, just the coal fired bit, I think.
Martin A
Martin A
I understand your point but your physics is at fault.
No matter how many turbines you have, if they are idle for two-thirds of the time an infinite number would still be insufficient.
I'm sure you really understand that; I'm equally sure that Ed Davey and Barking Mad don't. Whether their Little Helpers at the DECC don't understand either or are simply lying (the end justifying the means, and all that) I couldn't possibly say.
Mike Jackson
Yes: Didcot B (the gas-fired bit) is still running. But the 2 million households bit applied to Didcot A alone.
Turning Tide
There you go, TT. Mike Jackson's logic can't be faulted.
To replace Didcot A when the wind is not blowing would require more than an infinite number of turbines.
I think that means it would have to be replaced by a finite number of wind turbines plus something else that works whatever the weather. Or better still, by no wind turbines plus something else that works whatever the weather (such as a coal fired power station).
Martin A
We all keep pointing out how incredibly stupid our politicians must be to even think seriously about the policies now being implemented. However even though I am amongst the loudest critics is it not true that these people are well educated at top class universities. Say they have studied non relevant subjects yes but stupid? You have to at least consider that they know exactly what they are doing. They know chaos lies ahead and that our economy could be ruined (and yes people might die) but that is part of the plan?
John Dumber and Ed Big Balls both attending a Globe International conference?
There are at least some politicians in Westminster who want the global economy to be destroyed and the population to be vastly reduced.
Dung
Dung, nope, they really are stupid. I know nothing about banking but I could see that they'd gone bonkers lending to people who could afford the mortgages on buildings that weren't worth what they paid for them. Where were the government ministers saying 'hang on chaps, are you sure you're not over extending?'
There really are very few evil masterminds. Power shortages will ruin us with a mixture of ignorance, well meaning fiddling and opportunistc greed. Even the bankers have mostly lost the taste for gambling on failure. If they manufacture another catastrophe they might end up richer but shorter or at the very least gender neutral.
TinyCO2
Someone mentioned the interconnector with France in the context of backing up our ailing system. That has a maximum capacity of 2GW. The two connections to Ireland plus one to Holland add up to another 2GW. That total of 4GW would help but it is only about 7% of the typical winter maximum demand.
Our insular situation is often "overlooked": I read one of the government reports which compared our future power mix with Germany's without mentioning that country's substantial interconnections with its neighbours.
mikeh
Interesting topic. Developed countries typically have emergency/disaster management plans which are intended to cope with such events. How good they are is debatable,however. A friend of mine worked in the area that co-ordinates these for Australia, and when I asked him how robust they were, he said "Put it this way, I have stocked upon candles, batteries and firewood since I started working here."
The trouble is, it is impossible to plan in more than a very limited way. It depends on the weather, the economic cycle (for example, shops run down stocks towards the end of the financial year), the preparedness and capacity of local authorities and citizens and a hundred other things.
In places where plastic is used more than cash, food and medical supplies can become a real problem in just a few days if electronic payment systems go down. Ditto fuel, even if it is possible to get it distributed to retailers.
Rolling blackouts and brownouts of short duration are easier to manage, but even these can cause widespread disruption. As someone noted above, not all systems can be instantly rebooted once they go down.
Perhaps the greatest (but rarely mentioned) losses are economic. The cumulative losses to businesses and workers (including the self-employed) can be immense, with significant flow-through effects on the entire economy, including government revenue.
It is staggering to contemplate that any government would knowingly take such risks when they are avoidable. From what I can see, even rich countries struggle with natural disasters. Why on earth would you even contemplate policies that could lead to completely unnecessary man-made ones?