UK oil and gas is available, also coal.

but not that can be extracted at any rate that matches our consumption. As older gas fields effectively dry up, the rate of production falls as we have to go after the deeper stuff. Horizontal high contact drilling helps you deplete the reserve faster, and levels off the decline for a while,  but does not get you any more in total There is no getting away from the fact that the last time gas came out of the sea fast enough to meet our full domestic demand was about 20 years ago.
Oil had its peak about 2004 and we became a net importer instead of a net exporter shortly after, and the economy has never recovered.

Coal we have more of, but again the easy to get stuff has largely been mined, leaving us with reserves uneconomic to extract.

 Very few folk heat their homes with coal or coke these days, and if you ever have, you will recall what a pain it is compared to gas, and its more expensive per  kW.

Mike.

There's no doubt that uk oil will end in the not to distant future.

But why shut production down completely now?

We do have 200 years of coal. And fraking gas is a serious contender to supply us while we transition to nuclear.

mapj1 said:

Very few folk heat their homes with coal or coke these days, and if you ever have, you will recall what a pain it is compared to gas, and its more expensive per  kW.

Not forgetting that house coal has not been available in England for a couple of years. And yes, sitting back and enjoying the warmth of gas CH is much easier than laying a fire and waiting for it to heat the room. When you had domestiques to do that for you before breakfast, it was less of a problem.

Granted, one can bank up a fire overnight, but it seems rather extravagant.

I am surprised that coal is more expensive. Without doubt, what one cannot do is to stockpile gas.

Jon Steward said:

transition to nuclear

Attitudes have changed. Let us not forget that nuclear power stations were closely linked to the weapons programme.

Safety margins (and accordingly, cost) seem excessive, which contributes to the huge lead times. Small nuclear reactors are to be found at sea, so why can they not be built in quantity for use on land.

As I posted in athother thread, small reactors may now actually become commercial reality with the drive from the big tech companies for reliable, not renewable energy.

The Chinese and the Russians have working examples such as:

Russia connects floating plant to grid - World Nuclear News

It's quite interesting to look through the WNN website for what is a rather positive outlook on nuclear power.

The reactors used in nuclear submarines are not suitable. They are designed to use HEU (highly enriched uranium also highly expensive uranium) with it's attended proliferation problems.

Current events underline my long held view that most rural and outer suburban homes should be equipped a NON ELECTRIC means of heating at least one room to at least 20 degrees, for at least two weeks without any re-supply.

That's given me a thought ... if I could strap a Stirling engine or somesuch to my log burner to generate a few hundred watts of electricity, together with a few kWh of battery (standard tech these days), I'd have sufficient space heating, hot water and electricity to run the house normally quite independently of both the gas and electricity supplies, as long as the logs lasted (which could be quite a few weeks).

   - Andy.

It is certainly possible to generate electricity from a wood burning stove, by use of a Stirling engine or a peltier effect generator, but I feel you may be over optimistic as to how much power can be produced thus.

I have a peltier effect generator on my wood burner, at produces about 2 amps at 12 volts, enough for a couple of 12 volt LED lamps, a small battery is required or the voltage varies too much.

Philips used to make a small Stirling engine generator, known as the "bungalow set" it burned paraffin in an efficient pressurised burner similar to a Primus stove or a blow lamp. Output was 200 watts at mains voltage. Commonly used to power a tv set, and available to rent from TV rental shops.

These had two advantages over a small petrol engine, firstly no ignition sparks to cause interference, and secondly no toxic exhaust fumes, this allowed use indoors.  Other uses included battery charging, or powering fluorescent lights. I am showing my age by admitting to having used one.

Roger B said:

The reactors used in nuclear submarines are not suitable. They are designed to use HEU (highly enriched uranium also highly expensive uranium) with it's attended proliferation problems.

Ah well, nobody told me those secrets. 

Still, step-daughter can see Heysham from the end of the road, and daughter could see Sizewell from school, so none of us worries about nuclear reactors. I am all in favour.

This article has some details of the Russian small reactor family:

https://www.neimagazine.com/analysis/the-ritm-200n-as-a-terrestrial-unit/?cf-view

The load following capabilities are interesting however they will be necessary for propulsion use. It uses HALEU which avoids the proliferation problems but is still more expensive than standard reactor grade.

heat to electricity is not new but it's not easy to get a lot of power Over the years various folk have had a go. This webpage has a history of gas powered radios for example.
www.douglas-self.com/.../thermoelectric.htm

mike