The Trouble with Heat Pumps Part 2

Last post (HERE) I looked at the overall cost of installing ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) and how much land was needed. I touched upon other issues too which I will expand on here.

The first and most obvious issue with domestic GSHPs is simply their incapability. A typical domestic GSHP has an heat output of 4KW - 13KW. The most powerful have an heat output of about 16KW.

Compare that to a standard modern condensing gas boiler that has a heat output of somewhere between 20 – 50KW.

This low output from GSHPs has a number of consequences.

    • The typical water output temperature fed into the heating system is less than 40degC. You can increase that. But if you do the efficiency rapidly decreases. ( a gas system typically produces hot water at 65 degC or more)

    • With a GSHP it is difficult to get domestic hot water for the bath/sink/shower up to an acceptable temperature. The usual fix is that you use a standard electric immersion heater to raise the temperature to an acceptable level. 

    • Because the output temperature is so low, the recommended usage for central heating is in under-floor heating. So factor installing that into the installation costs as well.

    • If you decide to ignore the under-floor heating recommendation and use radiators it is recommended you increase their size. Either way, underfloor or larger radiators - you trash your decor and need to redecorate. Factor the cost of that in too.

    • The system has to be running 24/7. You cannot allow the house to cool down when empty as it takes so long to heat up due to the low heat output.

   • When the system does reach temperature, as the hot water heating the underfloor system/radiators is at a lower temperature than a gas system, the system cools more rapidly and so tends to cycle on/off/on/off more frequently than a conventional system.

    • Every site (I have seen) that recommends GSHPs always encourages the owner to increase household insulation during installation (more cost). Meanwhile any cost comparisons they perform are with obsolete gas/oil/electric systems like this one taken from  (HERE)

So - Wheres the comparison with a new condensing gas boiler?

I have never seen a headline comparison of GSHP with (say) a condensing gas boiler system in an equally well insulated house. It is always old obsolete systems. I suspect the reason for this is because it is actually cheaper to run a modern condensing gas boiler system than a GSHP. (more later)

So, the take out from this is that:

    • On a like for like basis GSHPs are not as effective as gas boilers when it comes to heating your home. They can do it. But in reality, condensing gas boilers are more capable (and cheaper to run).

    • To get acceptable hot water temperatures while using GSHP you either compromise the lauded efficiency of the GSHP or use an immersion heater. Either way the overall system efficiency takes a nose dive.

     • You need to factor in a complete ground-up rebuild of you houses heating system with all the decorating and associated building/plumbing work. Your garden will be trashed and need to be re-layed. This will be on top of the cost of the GSHP installation. 

    • The system runs 24/7. It needs to do this as it will take a long time to heat up your home again if you let it cool down. So if you plan to solely rely on cheap Economy 7 electricity to drive the compressor – dream on.

    • There’s mountains of deception and propaganda being peddled by people and organisations promoting heat pumps. Make sure you get the all the figures and make sure their comparisons are honest ones (they won’t be).

Running Costs

OK let’s assume you have overcome the installation restrictions as outlined in the first post in this series. 

You’ve sold the kids into slavery and spent your £20,000 - £30,000+ on a GSHP plus associated rebuild of your heating system/redecorating/relaying garden.  Let’s say it works satisfactorily (some don't).

How much are you going to save?

Here’s a table from Evergreen Energy (HERE)

So from this rather optimistic table we find KW for KW a GSHP has just short of 4 times the efficiency of gas. So far so good you may say. What’s not to like about that? For one KWh of electricity used by the GSHP provides 4KWh of heating. If its gas we need 4KWh of gas. 

(As I'll show later this efficiency of 350% for a GSHP is wildly optimistic and does not stand up to scrutiny when compared to actual real data from a large installation base - but never mind for now. We'll run with it as-is)

The trouble comes when look at a typical gas/electricity tariff like this one. (Its mine by the way)

Notice the electricity price for one KWh is over six times that of gas. True you need a second standing charge which will slightly increase the gas price. But not by much.

So, let us assume the choice is between replacing an old gas boiler with a £2000 new condensing gas boiler or paying out £20,000 for a GSHP system and another £10,000 for the associated rebuild of your heating system, garden and decor.

At the end of the day (day-to-day running cost-wise) you would still be better off with the condensing gas boiler. 

Subsidies.

The government wants to entice you to spend your money on a GSHP. This is so the government can grand-stand about how “environmental” it is. As a consequence the government will issue you with a big fat subsidy if you install a GSHP. It’s called the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).

Now subsidy is a funny word. 

Many people think the word "subsidy" is actually an abbreviation for “somebody else’s money”. 

I couldn't possibly comment.

Even so, the subsidy, (which will be payable for 7 years) won’t cover the initial cost of the GSHP let alone the extra money you’ll pay out on rebuilding your heating system, or on enhanced energy bills. It's considerably cheaper to leave the bribe with the government and buy a condensing gas boiler.

Carbon Emissions.

Ah – right! This must be a slam-dunk for GSHPs. Surely no government would ever propose a “green” solution that was (well…) less than it was made out to be? 

To be fair this is one area that GSHPs does win out over gas. But not by as much as some would have you believe.

First let's visit what the real efficiency value is rather than the promoted value. 

Usually, the value promoted by advocates of GSHPs is the COP (Coefficient of Performance) and usually they use a COP value obtained in more-or-less ideal conditions. They then use this idealised value to figure out both savings and emissions for the whole year. 

First of all, if we want a realistic figure we shouldn't use the COP at all. We should use what is known as the SPF (Seasonal Performance Factor) which is roughly the performance you would get over a year rather than just at ideal conditions. We then need to ensure the SPF also includes the bits that the COP ( and heat-pump protagonists) studiously avoid. Like hot water immersion heaters and the need for other in-built resistive heaters in cold conditions to boost the sagging room heating performance of the heat pump itself. 

DECC did a study of several hundred GSHPs and ASHPs (Air Source Heat Pumps) in 2017. (HERE) 

They found the typical (median) SPF for a GSHP was actually 2.71. 

Here's the DECC graph for the distribution for H4 (H4 is the full input/output from the GSHP system rather than just a sub-system of it). The data we are interested in this post is the right hand bar graph.

If you want to understand the differences H1,H2,H3 and H4 for heat-pumps read THIS paper

So now we find we need just under 3.0KW of gas (condensing gas boiler) to match  1KW electricity used by a GSHP. Surely that is still (nearly) a 3 - 1 win? 

Well, no. You still need to factor in the carbon emissions from the electricity generation – and transmission losses for both electric and gas.

From Carbon Independent (HERE) we find that, after accounting for transmission losses and leaks, UK electricity has a footprint of 0.309Kg/Kwh and gas 0.203Kg/Kwh. So now we are down to less than 2:1. Which, to be fair is still a gain. For today at least. 

If you work it out it comes out at less than 2 Tonnes of CO2 saved for the average house over a year if the comparison is with a new condensing gas boiler.

The problem here is that this still ignores the main inherent issue with GSHPs. Namely the low power output. If people start supplementing their meagre GSHP output with electric or calor gas heaters and regularly bump up their hot water temperature with immersion heaters, all bets are off.

So (maybe) a gain. But at what cost? Somebody has to pay the £20,000 even if some of the cost is spread across society (including the poor) with the government subsidy.

So let us  assume the carbon dioxide saving is (optimistically) 2 tonnes per household and the GSHP lasts for twenty years without needing repair and only costs £20,000 to install. 

(Be aware that ALL rotating machinery needs care, repair and maintenance over time. The suggestion from the Green lobby that heat pumps last “forever” is simply absurd propaganda. )

The initial capital cost over 20 years averages at least £1000 per year assuming zero interest. So each tonne of Carbon dioxide saved has cost a minimum of £500 just in up-front capital overhead alone.

Which must be not far short of a record. 

You need a big garden for a GSHP.  So basically poor people need not apply. But big gardens usually come with rich people attached, ready and willing to claim the big fat subsidies. Even then they'll be out of pocket.

This government subsidy (like most renewable bribes) is in fact a Dennis Moore tax. I am sure we all remember good 'ol Dennis Moore. 

Next I’ll look at Air Source Heat pumps. 

It doesn’t get better. (HERE)

Extinction Rebellion: When Prophesy Fails

[quote from Factfulness by Hans Rosling page 229]

"We need to create Fear!" That's what Al Gore said to me [Hans Rosling] at the start of our first conversation about how to teach climate change.

[unquote]

Hans Rosling declined Al Gore's invitation.

(By the way if you want a really excellent view on what is really happening to the world read Factfulness by Hans Rosling it is HERE)

But not everyone has the same scruples as Hans Rosling.

Unable to galvanise people to their cause by rational discourse many politicised proponents of "doing something" about Global warming/Climate Change/Climate Emergency have done exactly what Al Gore suggested to Hans Rosling.

They have deliberately gone out of their way to create a climate of fear. As an example today in the UK every out-of-the-ordinary weather event is somehow blamed on Global Warming.

Even when a reservoir Dam gets badly damaged by a ten year event (see here) it is somehow blamed on Global Warming rather than substandard maintenance.

I have to ask: SHOULDN'T a dam withstand a ten year event intact? Global warming or no global warming?

But all this fear mongering gathers like puss in a sceptic wound and now we have the inevitable result: Extinction Rebellion.

Extinction Rebellion is one of the more alarming cults to emerge in recent years.

The invisible controllers behind the organisation appear to target children. These children are then used in much the same way as African War lords use child soldiers or Drug dealers use child runners. To ensure loyalty to the cause they feed them panicky end-of-days predictions along with a sense of grievance about a "lost" future "stolen" by selfish seniors.

Let us look at the central prophesy promoted by Extinction Rebellion and their camp followers.

So, do we have only 18 months to "Save the Planet"?

The statement appears to have coalesced in this BBC article .

To be fair this 18 months is not actually a hard deadline where we all drop dead at the end of it. It is a deadline where "something has to be done".

That something appears to involve a lot of rich and powerful folk descending in Lear Jets on a few resorts and making some fatuous political statements.

So it is perhaps one of the easier prophesies to achieve. It is also one that can be successfully used to draw away from the failed climate prophesies of the last twenty years.

Take this statement from the above BBC article:

[quote]
But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year. 
[unquote]

So, who are these "observers"?
What are these "political steps"?
Who finally makes the call in 18 months time as to whether the planet is saved?

This all seems somewhat less clear.

What is clear is that (short of a Global recession) Carbon emissions are not going to stop rising in the  next 18 months, let alone decrease.

China and India who together make up the bulk of coal users in the world are not going to stop improving the lives of their peoples. Nor should they.

So should the West then do the "decent" thing and abandon their peoples to poverty?
Should we revert to some pre-industrial idyll? (that never existed) and do all this to prevent (so the theory states) a rise of more than 1.5 degC over the next century?

Personally I don't do poverty.

Even the IPCC doesn't do poverty. Their more sober predictions amount to a reduction in the rate of increase of the world's prosperity NOT a decline.

Really we need to put the risk from Global warming into perspective. According to the IPCC it may impact the rate of improvement in the world economy but it will not stop that improvement. Let alone reverse it.

Carbon emission reductions or not, the world is not going to collapse into some form of dystopian ecological catastrophe. Whatever the likes of Extinction Rebellion get their child soldiers to say.

The only way it may collapse into a nightmare of increasing poverty, reduced opportunity and blighted futures is if we allow the True believers and their disciples to call the tune.

So what should we do about Global Warming??

All the progress that has been made over the last two centuries has hinged around cheap effective energy. What has been shown time and time again is that if energy supply is not long-term cheap and 24/7 effective, it is not worthwhile.

While the effects of Global Warming may be bad, they would pale into insignificance if we allowed the billions recently lifted out of dollar-a-day poverty by cheap and plentiful energy to slide back down into it again.

Yet there are viable alternatives to coal and oil (aka: gas and nuclear) that will (and do) reduce emissions without pushing people into poverty. But sadly they are not fashionable or extreme enough for the likes of Extinction Rebellion.

Whatever we do, we must not throw two centuries of progress down the toilet simply to appease a cult.

Today I read that some elements with Extinction Rebellion are going on what they laughably call a baby strike. In other words they will not be having any children.

That is of course their choice. Personally I would consider their choice a wise one bearing in mind their lack of stability.

But worryingly this nihilism is only one step away from the next cult fantasy: The ultimate sacrifice.

Like all cults, the the young and gullible are the foot soldiers. Frightened little girls and boys swept up into an apocalyptic cult by the "fear" as prescribed by Al Gore.

If we keep appeasing the zealots running this cult then one day we will find we have another Jonestown or Heavens Gate to deal with. An avoidable tragedy where the victims will be kids. Kids who will have been in a perverse way, scared to death.

For them there really will be no future.

Fracking: Will it Ruin my Locality?

There is an enormous amount of controversy surrounding fracking and/or conventional oil and gas extraction in the UK. Groups of "Frackavists" paint lurid images of corrupted aquifers, poisoned rivers and vast environmental damage.

Along with that come the other scare stories. Rumours abound of potentially collapsing house prices and ugly scenery-scarring derricks. These scare stories do have an effect and many people develop a negative opinion about gas/oil extraction, especially in their locality.

But are these stories true?

We could look to the USA that has been massively exploiting shale gas for close on to twenty years. But we do not need to. We can look to our own (long term) experiences with on-shore oil/gas exploration and exploitation.

Most people do not actually realise that the UK has a large on-shore oil/gas field and that it has been exploited for nigh on forty years. This oil/gas field is known as Wytch Farm. Wytch Farm is by far the biggest on-shore oil/gas field within Northern Europe. Its production hub sits within Poole Harbour in Dorset. Wytch farm has over 100 oil/gas wells. Currently the site is owned by Perenco Ltd. Prior to Perenco's take over of the site a few years ago, the site was run and managed by BP.

Looking down from Purbeck  across to Poole Harbour. Below is the largest on-shore oil/gas field in Northern Europe with over 100 wells. Can you see any?

Wytch Farm sits within one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the World, laying on the edge of the World Heritage Jurassic Coast. The main operational centre is on a small island in the heart of Poole Harbour and sits about one mile (and in direct line of sight) from the area known as Sandbanks. Sandbanks is the second most expensive area in the world for residential property. If you wanted to buy one of the properties nearest Wytch Farm you would be lucky to get any change out of £10 million.

Wytch Farm is a large industrial complex yet it is so unobtrusive and environmentally benign that most local people simply do not know it exists.

But what about fracking?

Fracking is usually associated with horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of the well hole. 

Wytch Farm was one of the world's pioneers in the development of horizontal drilling. Some of the many wells that radiate out from the operational hub of Furzey island within Poole Harbour stretch out for up to 10 km. Most of the production wells running out from Wytch Farm have been “optimised”  using a technique known as water flooding. This technique is different from fracking as this is a conventional gas/oil field. Even so, water is still injected into the rock. But it is used to "flush out" the oil and gas rather than increase the pathways for the oil/gas to flow down. In both cases this activity takes many thousands of meters under the surface and has makes no difference to the surface topology of the site.

So Wytch Farm is an extremely good guide for how properly managed new oil/gas exploration/exploitation (including fracking) affects the local area.

Particularly for Wytch Farm we can state:

• Wytch Farm has not damaged an area of outstanding natural beauty.
• Wytch Farm has had minimal impact on the environment.
• Wytch farm has provided many good quality jobs for local people.
• Wytch Farm has invested heavily in the locality and in environmental protection.
• Wytch farm has reduced UK dependence on foreign oil and gas.
• Wytch Farm clearly has had no affect on property prices.

Wytch Farm, as far as local residents are concerned is virtually invisible. Occasionally when a new well is being drilled, a derrick pops up for a short while but is soon gone. If Wytch Farm were to badly affect the local area does anyone seriously believe that the likes of Harry Redknap (whose house is arguably the closest to Wytch farm) would pay millions to live there?

So how would new oil/gas exploration/exploitation in the UK affect Global Warming and Air Pollution.

The first and most obvious fact is that whether or not any new oil/gas fields are developed in the UK the number of fossil fuelled cars/trucks on our roads will be totally unaffected. As will their emissions. All that would happen is that the shortfall from UK production would be made up by importing oil/gas from international suppliers.

Crucially, this imported oil/gas would have to be shipped here.

One little known fact is that the fifteen largest ships in the world (mostly oil tankers) actually pump out more Sulphur Dioxide and particulate matter than all the cars on All the roads in ALL the world.

For the UK, all noxious emissions from cars are matched by a single supertanker.

By simply producing oil locally and so reducing the use of large oil tankers there would be a reduction in Sulphur Dioxide pollution and other noxious large ship emissions.

Keeping it in the ground is a wonderful slogan, but really, unless and until there is a valid replacement for oil based fossil fuel used for transport, it is better and more environmentally responsible to use local supplies rather than remote and uncontrolled foreign supplies.

So, if there is the prospect of an oil/gas development close to you, ask those who are telling you the lurid tales of doom and desolation what they think about Wytch Farm.

Ask them why should any new development be any different from Wytch Farm.

Of course you will probably find that they have never even heard of Wytch Farm in Dorset let alone know it is the biggest oil/gas field in Northern Europe.

Just in case you think I am indulging in the Frackavist diseases of selective quotation and open deceit – here's a few links that may further enlighten you.

Wytch Farm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23961621

http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/wytch-farm-oil-field/

http://www.perenco-uk.com/

Large Ship Pollution:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/31/noaa-pollution-florida-freighters-tankers-cruise-ships

Energy Storage: The Trouble with Power to Gas

There is a fundamental law of Physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy.

It's a real bitch.

Basically it demands that whatever the system you use, you can never get more energy out of it than you put in. So many beautiful dreams have come to naught - just because of this one damn law.

Even so there should be an adjunct to the law of conservation of energy. Something more like a serious health warning really.

Something like:

"Whenever you change from one form of energy to another - you will get screwed."

And I mean really screwed.

If on your last foreign holiday you thought changing currency was robbery then believe me, that was as nothing compared to the losses when changing energy form.

Truly, energy can neither be created or destroyed. But Oh Boy can it get "mislaid" dispersed or changed into unwanted useless forms whenever you try to convert one form into another.

You always (and I mean ALWAYS) end up with less than you started with. Mostly you end up with significantly less.

How good a system is at converting energy is its energy efficiency. It can never-ever be more than 100%.

90% is mind bogglingly good.

An old 19th century steam engine by comparison is about 10% efficient - on a good day.

By burning fossil fuels and liberating their stored chemical energy as heat and then changing that heat (from burning coal or gas) into electricity - you will lose about 50% of the energy as waste heat up the chimney. Still, we do it because electricity is far more useful to us than a lump of coal or a pocket of trapped gas.

Now, what would be the best way to store the energy in (say) gas for a rainy day?

Would it be by just not burning it until needed? Or would be by converting it to electriciy (50% loss) and then post generation converting it back to something else? (say another 50% loss)

I hope it is obvious that by doing a "gas->electricity->something else" you will get royally screwed. In this example you would end up with 25% of what you started with.

You are far, far better off not burning the gas until needed.

Wind turbines and solar PV do not have the luxury of having their energy pre-stored like coal, gas or nuclear. If there is excess generation by wind or solar they either waste the available energy by not converting it or they have to convert it to electricity and then convert it again to some other storeable energy form.

So, with wind (or solar) you have no option but to bear the pain and go with:

"wind->electricity->something else".

One of the much hyped "something elses" for wind/solar is called Power to Gas (Wikipedia article Here).

Twitter is alive with excited windies who see Power to Gas as the the "Great Breakthough" - The mythical silver bullet that will slay the demon problem of energy storage for wind/solar.

To be fair, Power to Gas is technically clever. It takes any excess electricity from wind/solar and via some clever chemistry uses it to generate flammable gas - either hydrogen or methane. This can then be stored and used at some later date either for heat or electricity generation..

The trouble with Power to Gas is is not the cleverness of the technology. The trouble is that damn law of physics about energy conservation. Especially the health warning attached to it.

Turning electricity to potential chemical energy (gas) is at best 75% efficient but more realistically it is around 60%. Then turning that gas back to electricity again reduces the overall efficiency to around 40% at best or more realistically about 30%. In other words we lose about two thirds of the energy - Of course the missing 2/3rds is not destroyed. It is simply just dissipated and lost to the system.

Remember this proposed technique is there to bale-out an already massively subsidized generator. Even if you totally ignore the actual cost of plant and plant operation the price of the re-generated electricity would have to be three times that of the source price just to stay level.

In reality though the price of Power to Gas has been estimated at anything from £500-1000 MWh. Or from 10 to 20 times as expensive as current gas/coal/nuclear generation.

A whole order of magnitude more expensive. Breathtaking!

Power to Gas is a nice idea. It may even have some practical niche applications. But storing excess energy from wind and solar? Dream on.

And all because of that damn law about the Conservation of Energy.

Protesters told to Frack Off

The good people of Balcombe are law abiding and decent folk. Bearing in mind how much anti-fracking propaganda has been spewed out about the Balcombe drill site they are understandably somewhat nervous. But even they realise that the Cuadrilla test well is hardly the end of the world. It is by the way, not fracked. It is not even gas - they are drilling a test well for oil.

The good folk of Balcombe are, however getting truly p*ssed off with the anti-social self-indulgent tribe of technologically illiterate bigots who have descended upon them.

Below is an open letter from the Balcombe Parish Chairman to the buffoons.

(h/t to Bishop Hill here )

[quote]

...At a public meeting held last Friday evening [No Dash for Gas] sought to justify such actions on the grounds that the company that is drilling is acting illegally and that in consequence illegal actions to stop it are justified. This is quite simply not the case.  Like it or not, the drilling operation is entirely legal.  All the necessary permissions and permits have been sought and are in place.

• Thirdly the  group seeks to legitimize such actions by saying that whatever is done is in response to Balcombe residents’ call for help. This is just not true.

So here it is. Balcombe strongly opposes any actions which may be taken which involve civil trespass and/or illegal acts. And I further state this, if the No Dash for Gas group is coming here in the full knowledge that it intends to break the law then it should stay away. It is not wanted in Balcombe! It is duly uninvited.

Alison Stevenson

Chairman

Balcombe Parish Council

[unquote]

I just found the full letter.... it is HERE

Just about says it all really.

Fukushima – the Hidden Epidemic

I hope to show in this post how the events at Fukushima and the subsequent actions of the Japanese government effectively signed the death warrant for thousands of Japanese people and consigned many more to ill health and premature death. I will also show that sadly, this is a continuing and on-going problem with no end in sight.

A great deal of lurid speculation has surrounded the melt downs at Fukushima. But surprisingly, (it is now two years since the Tsunami) there has been no indication of any actual loss of life from radiation from any reputable body.

But significant loss of life there has been. Without a doubt.

The press and media have distracted people from this silent epidemic by their lurid (often fictional, usually ignorant)  sensationalist news reports. The result is that most people are now focussing on the wrong issue.

To get a handle on this epidemic we  need to consider events that took place all across Japan immediately after the Tsunami. Particularly we need to see what happened to Japanese power generation.

After the melt downs,  the Japanese government ordered the shutdown of all nuclear plant in Japan. Today, two years on, only two reactors are in operation. As Japan relied on nuclear power for close on to 30% of its electricity, these shut downs left a very large hole in Japan's generation capability. A hole that had to be filled by other generating capacity.

Here is a a set of tables up to end 2011 of  Japanese fossil energy usage for electrical generation

From this you can see Natural Gas generation rose by 58 TWh, coal by 57 TWh, and Oil by 9 TWh through 2011.  It would seem reasonable to assume the split remained much the same through 2012, if not somewhat higher in total

Now we come to some highly regarded published and peer reviewed papers

The first paper (published in Environmental Science and Technology paper available HERE) is by Hansen and Kheracha (if you don't know who Dr Jim Hansen is then you must have been asleep for the last ten years)

They reference a second paper (published in The Lancet medical journal - paper available HERE) by Markandya and Wilkinson. Both papers revolve around this table showing the number of deaths caused by electrical generation. While this table refers to Europe, I would argue is equally valid for Japan.

The extra Coal based electrical generation, (displacing Nuclear) kills through air pollution, 24 people per TWh of generation. Over the two year period that comes to (24 x 57 x 2) = 2736 deaths, 25,000 serious illnesses and untold minor ailments.

Extra Natural Gas based electrical generation has caused (3 x 58 x 2) = 348 extra deaths, 3400 serious illnesses and  again thousands of minor illnesses

Oil based electrical generation statistically kills 19.2 people per TWh. So the additional oil based generation has caused the deaths of ( 19 x 9 x 2) = 342 extra deaths, 2900 serious illnesses and another legion of minor illnesses.

Assuming Nuclear would have originally handled all this (i.e. 57 + 58 + 9 = 124 TWh),  then the statistical deaths from nuclear would have amounted to (0.052 x 124 x 2) = 12 deaths and 54 serious illnesses.

So there we have our hidden plague. Death brought about NOT BY nuclear power, but brought about by NOT HAVING nuclear power. An epidemic killing almost 3500 people in two years ( that is nearly 33 a week) and leaving many times that number ill and incapacitated.

Of course, this slaughter can be stopped within a few days. But that requires political courage and an honesty beyond that seen so far in Japanese politics.

Basically somebody has to stand up, explain the statistical risks to the Japanese people from nuclear power. Then detail the continuing carnage from the fossil fuel replacement.

Then they need to turn the nuclear plant back on.

(my figures are highly conservative. The most likely death toll from this silent plague is considerably higher)

UK Gas Prices: The Rip-Off Continues

So, as the dust settles over the last gas price rise we can look back and see if the reasoning behind it was sound.

As I remember the last price rise  (of around 10%) was to....

• Cope with rising wholesale prices,
• Pay for some unspecified rise in costs associated with gas transport
• Pay for renewal of capital equipment.

It was (I am told) absolutely nothing to do with raising huge and unreasonable profits.

Hmmmmm

Wholesale prices

Look at this graph.

(graph from Catalyst Energy Solutions. Here)

The graph looks a  bit of a dogs breakfast because it show several years of wholesale (or spot) gas prices. Each colour is for a different year. Notice that the wholesale price to when the graph ends (Oct 2012) is little changed since December 2010.

So even from this you have to ask: Why the price rise? But look back further. Notice the whole sale price COLLAPSED at the end of 2009, so the rise they keep droning on about actually arises from a large price decrease in 2009. Wholesale prices in Oct 2012 are not much different to Jan 2009.

So, has the gas price today in January 2013 massively risen since the end point on the graph (Oct 2012) ?

No. The wholesale price today  is much the same as the end of October which is much the same as January 2009. But it gets worse. If you go even further back, beyond this graphs resolution you find the wholesale gas price was similar or higher than today way back to March 2008. (see future post)

Of course, wholesale gas only accounts for about 55% of the retail price anyway. So if the wholesale price is flat, then to get a retail price rise of 10%  the price of gas transport and customer servicing must have risen by 22%. Wow!

Even though these companies then go on to whine about making large capital investments they still manage to produce an enormous, and rising year on year profit. Clearly the concept of using your profits to invest in the future is alien to the Utilities.

Why can they do this? Because rather than operating as competing companies, their operation looks more like that of a cartel. They pretend to compete yet actually protect their combined markets at the cost of the consumer, and the government lets them get away with it.

The words “arrogant rip-off” come to mind.

Gasland Purbeck and Propaganda

The Purbeck Film Festival is to present the film Gasland as one of it's features. For those who do not know, Gasland is a documentary about Fracking. (Natural Gas extraction by Hydraulic Fracturing).

As a film, Gasland  has been totally discredited by a number of sources. As a documentary it is laughably inaccurate and riddled with innuendo and make believe. Truth is most certainly not it's strong point. To say Gasland refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good fairy-tale would be the understatement of the century.

The fact that this grubby piece of propaganda, with so many inaccuracies, contradictions and outright lies should be shown as some form of "environmental" expose says a lot about the gullibility and narrow mindedness of those presenting it. I notice they couldn't wait to run up a poster with somebody in a bio hazard suite. No doubt their mates will be impressed.

The truth, as shown in the USA now over several years is very, very different from the childish paranoia as displayed by our local eco-warriors.

If you go and watch this preposterous lie of a film first of all read at least some of this detailed demolition of the film, (virtually minute by minute.) Here Or for a synopsis Here

Alternatively try this article by Liz Stelle at the Commonwealth foundation Here

Or maybe this demolition piece at the New York Times Here

 This film is so pitifully inaccurate I could go on and on with more exposé's. But I'm bored. Google "Gasland debunked" yourself.

So what is the truth about Fracking?

Let us start with a few undeniable facts (even by the eco-zealots)

1. As fracking has become a mainstream source of natural gas in the USA, prices have fallen to one third of their 2011 price. In other words wholesale gas is, at most, the same price it was ten years ago.
2. In the USA gas is now cheap enough to displace coal as an energy source for generating electricity. Consequently USA Carbon emissions have massively decreased. Please note: The vast majority of this decrease is due to the utilisation of natural gas NOT wind or solar (whose contribution gets buried in the noise).
3. Fracking in the USA is now a very large industry employing many thousands of people, yet the paranoid depictions and claims of huge (or even small) water poisoning problems as made in Gasland have been shown to be utterly false.
4. Because of fracking, the USA has for the first time in a 100 years, become a net exporter of oil products and is within sight of what most Americans regard as their holy grail - energy self sufficiency.
5. In fact the USA is likely to become a large exporter of LNG in the next few years. They are also converting thousands of trucks to LNG so reducing their Carbon emissions even more.

The final irony on all this is that as gas has displaced coal in the USA, world coal prices have fallen. Because Russian and Norwegian gas is expensive we, in the UK, are now burning more coal. Our emissions have increased because we have not adopted fracking like they have in the USA.

So how does this directly affect us?

Purbeck has the largest on-shore oil field in Europe (ever noticed it?) Potentially there might also be a great deal of gas, the extraction of which will be about as noticeable as the extraction of the oil has been for the last 50 years.

While I hate wind turbines and would happily do without them, even my windy turbine loving readership must admit they need backup (aka gas) Either we can be held to ransom by Putin (or even buy US fracked gas at a large premium) or we can explore our own resources. That means exploring the potential of fracking in Purbeck as well as elsewhere. Wind turbines or not.

Sadly it looks like science and truth come a very poor second to fashionability for those promoting this junk film at the Purbeck Film Festival. They much prefer their self indulgent fashionable hysteria. After all, without the lies and ridiculous posters who else would pay attention to them?

The bottom line is that Gasland, is an irresponsible, inaccurate and unscientific piece of propaganda that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. It is though, Oh-So fashionable.

Interestingly there is another film for release soon called FrackNation which puts the other viewpoint. But I don't expect our eco-fashionistas will be the least bit interested let alone promoting it at the next Purbeck Film Festival.

By all means, support the Purbeck Film Festival. Even go and see Gasland if you must. But don't be naive. Those showing this film have a political agenda to which the truth is very much a secondary issue.

Be Warned.