>
>In our scenario, set in the winter of 2010, Britain is struggling to
>generate enough electricity to cope with demand.
>
>We've used most of our reserves in the North Sea and are already
>heavily dependent on imported gas to generate electricity, the
>majority of which we buy from Russia.
>
>Was it any good?

I missed the first half of the programme. But what I saw was very good
and very scary. The level of 'scariness' was heightened by the
plausibility of the scenario. It's all too clear the the UK is
ill-equipped to cope with a catastrophic loss of gas supply.
>
>It's amazing to me that nuclear power currently provides almost 25% of
>power in Great Britain but that the British goverment is apparently
>steadfastly committed to no new nuclear plant construction. Since all
>of these plants will be decommissioned by the early 2020s, where do
>they expect to make up that 25%?

Currently Britain's energy supply is derived from 35% coal, 24% nuclear
energy, 3% renewable, and 37% gas.

It is projected that by 2010 the balance will have radically altered:
coal 17%, 16% nuclear, 10% renewable, and 57% gas!

The problem is that the gas supply won't be ours - it'll be supplied by
Russia with Iran and Algeria also being considered.

Britain has no contingency for stock-piling gas and so if the Russian
supply is disrupted - the programme's scenario was by terrorist attack -
then the lights go out almost immediately. France and Germany, for
example, have six weeks' supply of gas in reserve.
>
>Maybe Patricia Hewitt is right that by the time the nuke plants are
>decomissioned, wind and solar power will be able to pick up the slack,

Very, very, unlikely at the current rate of build. Also, wind energy is
fickle and can't be relied up and so needs the backup of conventional
power generation. See the above stats.

>but that seems like a pretty reckless gamble given the current state
>of the technologies.

Agreed.

Cheers,

Duncan