Welcome to the Highlands

Welcome to the Highlands, the land of  sparkling Burns, The Heather hughed Glens, High Mountains where the Eagles soar, a land of Deer and Salmon, Kilts and Pipes. The Corbetts, the Grahams and the Monros. A place to revitalise the Spirit and the Soul. This is a land of proud people, people that will give any man the time of day.

But today a certain sadness pervades all. In a desperate drive for fame our politicians have sold Scotland and its wild places to the lowest bidder. The march of the wind factories is heard in the Glens. Tourism for Scotland is dead. Our way of life crushed beneath the greed of mostly foreign adventurers and aided by our Government and Planners.

This is the opportunity for all you to have your say and perhaps we will save something for our children.

The first great requisite of motive power is; that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire.The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.

William Stanley Jevons (1865)

“God never made an ugly landscape. All that sun shines on is beautiful, so long as it is wild.”

— John Muir

“Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is necessity; that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.”

— John Muir

Advertisements
Posted in Tourism, Uncategorized | 36 Comments

You’ve Heard it By Now! 758 Renewable Energy Contracts CANCELLED in Ontario!!

The reality has now dawned on Ontario

Quixotes Last Stand

Ontario PC government cancels 758 renewable energy contracts, says it saves $790M

National Post — Shawn Jeffords — July 13, 2018

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government is cancelling 758 renewable energy contracts in what it says is an effort to reduce electricity bills in the province.

Energy Minister Greg Rickford said the move will save provincial ratepayers $790 million — a figure industry officials dispute, saying the cancellations will just mean job losses for small business.

In a statement Friday, Rickford said the government plans to introduce legislation during its summer sitting that would protect hydro consumers from any costs incurred from the contract cancellations.

“For 15 years, Ontario families and businesses have been forced to pay inflated hydro prices so the government could spend on unnecessary and expensive energy schemes,” Rickford said. “Those days are over.”

The government announcement does not indicate which specific projects are being cancelled.  Rickford…

View original post 24 more words

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

Rampion, A farce or a fiddle

rampion

Rampion Offshore Wind Farm Lifetime Subsidies will Total £2.5 Billion
Glogal Warming Policy Forum
Dr John Costable
30 May 2018

The 400 MW Rampion Offshore Wind Farm is nearly complete, and has now formally opened its Operations and Maintenance headquarters in Newhaven. This wind farm alone will add £2.5 billion in total to the cost of UK electricity over its approximately 20 year lifetime, that being the total subsidy to be paid at a rate of about £126 million a year over the two decades.

Parliamentarians and other decision makers have a fatal weakness for policy outcomes forming a suitable background for a photograph, and Maria Caulfield, MP, who represents Lewes in Sussex, duly turned up to wear the hard-hat-and-hi-viz-jacket and give an upbeat speech at the opening of the Newhaven headquarters of the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm, which is currently approaching completion.

No politician hoping for re-election can be expected to be on oath in such situations, and the phoney absurdity of these ceremonies is perhaps the defining and soul-destroying occupational hazard of modern constituency life. Who knows what MPs really think when they open a wind farm. Perhaps they are not altogether sure themselves.

If so, their uncertainty would be intelligible if not forgivable, for good information is hard to come by, and in spite of increasing awareness in some circles of the underlying economic realities of the UK’s renewables programme, the industry has wisely relied on public misconceptions and patiently stood its ground while refusing to talk about the subsidies unless absolutely forced to do so.

Stations currently commissioning, like Rampion, even benefit from the fact that even those members of the public who are interested in such matters are under the impression that the whole orgy of subsidies is over. Hasn’t the Renewables Obligation closed? Hasn’t the Treasury put a freeze on new renewables subsidies until the mid 2020s at the earliest? Yes, yes.

The RO closed to new entrants in 2017, and the moratorium imposed by the Treasury in last year’s Autumn Budget is perhaps the most significant and under-publicised climate policy decision of the last five years or so. – The game is clearly up. But if so, what is Rampion playing at? If you turn for such economic information to the wind farm’s otherwise very informative website you will be disappointed.

The developers are only too happy to tell you that the project has created a number of jobs locally, that it is making a substantial sum available for a local community fund, that it will generate enough electricity for 350,000 homes, that it will prevent the emission of a certain quantity of carbon dioxide, and that they are investing £1.2 billion in the project. Of their likely income you will find nothing.

But £1.2 billion is a great deal of money, and represents the disposition of a vast bulk of real world resources, about £3m/MW in fact, perhaps four or five times as much as the capital cost of a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT). Sensible companies don’t spend on that scale without a very clear idea of how they will make a return. What could possibly motivate the site’s owners? (Those owners, by the way, are E.ON (50.1%) the Green Investment Bank (25%), now owned by Macquarie Group Limited, and, curiously, the North American energy company, Enbridge (24.9%), whose pipelines move about one fifth of all the natural gas consumed in the United States.)

The answer is subsidies, of course, for the Rampion Offshore Wind Farm has a legacy entitlement under the so-called “grace period” of the Renewables Obligation. Ofgem’s public register tells us that this station (R00034RPEN) was accredited on the 26 November 2017. It will therefore receive 1.8 Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for every one of the approximately 1,400,000 megawatt hours that its owners believe it will generate.

At current ROC prices that will amount to about £126 million pounds a year in subsidy. The wholesale price of the electricity will only add about another £60 million a year, so roughly two thirds of the annual income of the project will be non-market public support.

Put another way, using CCGTs instead of Rampion, the UK would have almost three times as much electricity for the same cost, and have it when that energy is on demand rather than at the mercy of the weather.

Furthermore, these subsidy entitlements are for the long term, and over the twenty year lifetime the total subsidy to Rampion will come to about £2.5 billion.

This is the hangover from the renewables party, and why the official projections for renewables subsidies, such as those presented by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) continue to increase from the current level of £8.8 billion per year to £11.5 billion per year in the period 2022 to 2023 (see tab 2.7 in the OBR’s “March 2018 Economic and fiscal outlook – supplementary fiscal tables: receipts and other”), in spite of the closure of the schemes and the refusal of the Treasury to introduce replacements.

The UK government is very prone to bragging about the falling cost of offshore wind, which it demonstrates by pointing to the £57.50/MWh bids made in the last round of Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions and applying to projects due to start generating in the early 2020s.

Some of us don’t believe that those bids are actually economic, but government appears to take them at face value. In which case, why is another offshore wind farm, Rampion, commissioning only a few years before, set to receive more than double that CfD bid at roughly £140/MWh? One of these two figures must, surely, be a long way from the truth. Which is it?
The Global Warming Policy Forum

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

A great analysis of the Future, or not, of wind

via Inevitable Transition: End to Subsidies Spells Armageddon for Ageing Wind Turbines in Europe

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

The Truth about Fossil Fuels

A Barrel of oil

The Greens believe that Fossil Fuels are bad and the worst of all is oil. Then they put on their polyester trousers, brush their teeth with their plastic toothbrush and comb their hair with their plastic comb. Seemingly unable to comprehend that these are all products of oil.. Even you EV or hybrid requires oil to lubricate it’s moving parts and the wiring is covered in plastic. Many Pharmaceuticals are derived from oil derivatives such as acetylsalicylic acid prevalent in many over the counter pain reliefs. Ask the next greenie where her make up came from as up to 80% of make up is based on oil based products. Their mobile phones will no doubt be made of plastic. Stopping drilling for oil would not just mean a change to electric vehicles but would have a catastrophic impact on every day living. There are only so many hemp sandals to go around the our cost of living would rise inexorably if we relied on purely organic supplies.

 

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

Industrial Wind

Industrial wind

I think this a brilliant précis of industrial wind. I really despair of the Scottish Government and note that Fergus Ewing, who is a man I know and respect for the good that he has done in several areas, has done untold harm to the Scottish Countryside . First under Energy he decimated areas of scenic importance with Wind Factories and now, at Rural Affairs, the policy of Agroforestry is taken grazing land and, in deed, arable land for an ambition of creating 100,000 hectares of new woodland by 2022, which will(sic) make a significant contribution to achieving Scotland’s long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets according to the Minister. Oh no, still on that old hockey stick scam then. Scotland’s impact on GHG emissions on the world stage is like an ant on an elephants back. As to the benefits of agroforestry diverting funds from existing forestry the timescale of tree growth and the limit of uptake of GHG of commercial forestry suck as Sitka suggests that insufficient study has resulted in flawed policies. This is nothing to do with GHGs and much to do with supplying the timber processing industry, and especially biomass, with cheap timber. It is the three card trick! For the wind industry there is a secret benefit. Cut down trees to build a wind farm and replant, as required, on greenfield agroforestry sites which derive full subsidy benefits whereas replanting clear felled wind ‘farm’ sites would get no subsidy. although a great deal of income from timber sales. If it looks like a scam, smells like a scam, it is a scam!

Is it really worth destroying Scotland’s visual heritage for an impossible and presumptuous ambition?

 

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

The Law of unintended consequences

straw bales

Last year the growing season for hay, straw and sileage was very short and there was a forecast of a shortage with price rises from some suppliers. In 2016 two hundred and fifty thousands tons of straw  went to biomass. Last year one million tons of straw went into Biomass. Add to that a very long winter and most farmers are desperately short of winter feed and bedding with animals still in sheds. Add to a perfect storm Southern Ireland has a similar crisis and have added a £17 per ton subsidy for Irish Farmers. In one day last week thousand six hundred tons of straw/hay crossed the Irish Sea. Truth is animals need feed and bedding and if one million tons are removed from the market to go up in smoke our welfare standards will begin to suffer. How much of our straw  will be directed to Biomass next year. This is a crisis in the making and the Government were told but chose not to listen. A government spokesperson suggested we could use waste paper or sawdust for bedding. Obviously fails to appreciate the thermal value of straw to stock in winter. What a dunderhead! To an urbanite a field full of straw bales in autumn is seen as waste products but to the farmer they are stock for the winter. Push those prices up and the farmer cannot recover his costs from sales and will have to over winter fewer beasts. Long term that means more imports of meat from countries with lower welfare standards. The law of unintended consequences. I am told in the US bread prices have reached a mind boggling $5 per loaf due to the diversion of grain to produce ethanol, the green fuel. Makes you wonder where we are going. We need firstly to protect our agriculture as we need to feed our people. Let us not take primary crops for biomass!

straw biomass

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

A critique of Ruth Davidson

Ruth Davidson has garnered a great deal of support for Scottish Conservatives but on Climate she seems to lack critical thinking and an ability to see beyond the political village. Cognitive dissonance allied to group think infects most of the political classes. More and more we see their pet projects, such as Drax, exposed as disasters. Offshore wind ruins fishing grounds and local tourism and creates a future headache of redundant blades for which there is no disposal policy. Will they just jettison them to the deep? Doug Brodie makes an interesting critique and we hope that at some time in the not so distant future Ms Davidson will wake up and smell the coffee. In the meantime you may like to consider Doug’s views.

The climate change Emperor’s new clothes

Ruth Davidson recently posted an article in the Scotsman newspaper under the headline Real Conservatives fight climate change. She tried to make the case that man-made climate change is a “devastating” problem which needs urgent, world leading action. Her views were poorly received by the Scotsman’s online discussion community with most commenters opposed to her stance and those who supported her given short shrift.

Every time I read an article like Ruth Davidson’s I feel like the little boy in the fairy-tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. I wonder in amazement at how not just Ruth Davidson but the entire Western establishment (USA now excepted) could have lost the plot so badly over “climate change”.

There are four particularly glaring problems with the climate change Emperor’s new clothes, i.e. the government’s climate and energy policies, yet “the powers that be” including Ruth Davidson ignore them completely, their heads stuck firmly in the sand.

The first glaring problem is that the government has chosen to use wholly inappropriate, hopelessly ineffectual technologies to supposedly “tackle climate change”, to use Ruth Davidson’s naively unrealistic phrase. The result is that although it has been straining to decarbonise the economy since the 2008 Climate Change Act with its legally binding 80% decarbonisation target, the government has so far barely scratched the surface. All our so-called renewables together supplied just 5.1% of UK final energy consumption in 2016. The government even tries to fool the electorate (perhaps itself as well) on the actual emissions savings achieved by these renewables by the subterfuge of not taking into account all their negative system-wide impacts and equipment lifecycle energy costs. Wind and solar renewables are more aptly described as weather dependent unreliables, they are energy sparse, they pollute the environment and they are totally unsustainable without 100% duplication backup from conventional power stations. Even more tellingly and contrary to establishment propaganda, wind and PV solar are going nowhere globally: according to the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends they supplied less than 1% of global energy demand.

Why is the government so blind to the simple maths (5% versus 80%) which show that what they are trying to achieve is impossible? They have only managed to get to where they are now by allowing the UK’s once comfortable electricity capacity margin to shrink to a knife edge. Since the closure of Longannet coal power station Scotland has had zero margin and is dependent on backup electricity from England to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow. Looking at allegedly “green” or genuinely low-carbon options, a massive deployment of very expensive, energy hungry, unproven at scale carbon capture and storage looks to be a non-starter and a massive expansion of emissions-free nuclear also looks very unlikely. The government hopes for a big increase in international interconnectors but this could severely endanger our security of supply. They are probably attracted to this as it allows them the subterfuge of not counting the emissions of the imported foreign electricity. Barring these options, the government is left with trying to scale up their unreliable renewables by a fantastical factor of about fifteen but it is obvious to anyone with any engineering awareness that any such scaling up is totally infeasible and unworkable. All our solar and wind power falls to zero when there is no sun and no wind (UK-wide becalmings lasting for several days are not uncommon) and electricity storage is technically and financially infeasible by orders of magnitude. As the late government chief scientific advisor Professor Sir David Mackay told our politicians years ago (they ignored him), it is an “appalling delusion” to think that renewables could ever power the UK economy. It is surely only a matter of time before the government has to admit that he was right. Their naively wished-for low carbon economy is unattainable.

The second glaring problem with government climate and energy policy is that our ineffectual renewables are also ruinously expensive which means that our lemming-like, self-flagellating UK decarbonisation will simply further reduce the competitiveness of UK businesses and worsen fuel poverty which here in high latitude Scotland once reached a shocking 39% of households, since massaged down slightly. Energy price increases will become intolerable if these misguided policies continue given that we have so far barely scratched the surface of the 80% decarbonisation target and the cost of green subsidies (“Environmental levies”) has already risen to £11.4 billion per year, nearly all of it loaded onto our electricity bills. This folly seems to allow our politicians an undeserved feeling of self-righteousness but one wonders how many of them realise that their economy damaging efforts will have negligible impact on the global climate as the UK accounts for just 1% of global emissions.

Contrary to recent industry and government misinformation, offshore wind is particularly expensive. For example the new Beatrice wind farm being built in the outer Moray Firth will cost consumers three times the market price for its unreliable electricity and that’s not counting the cost of building and running a duplicate conventional power station to take over when there is not enough wind, nor the high interconnection and transmission costs for this remote offshore site. The cost of rebuilding when it reaches its early end of life after 25 years at best also needs to be factored in, with recent adverse offshore experience suggesting that the service life could be much shorter. Madness on stilts! Our “clutching at straws” Climate Change minister recently boasted of a year of modest emissions reductions while still achieving economic growth. The real headline should be that economic growth was achieved despite her irresponsible, self-harming climate and energy policies.

The third glaring problem is that contrary to the establishment hype it is obvious that the Paris Agreement will have negligible effect on global emissions and hence on the global climate as the vast bulk of the world’s countries are exempt from having to reduce their emissions, including China and India who plan to double and triple their respective emissions by 2030. Despite these well documented INDC facts the government is in such denial on this issue that it insists our irrelevant decarbonisation efforts are essential in order to set an example to the rest of the world when it is obvious that our ruinous example is being ignored. The reality is that most developing countries only pay lip service to the UN IPCC’s climate alarmism and have been stringing us in the West along in the hope of a share of the UN’s $100 billion a year global climate fund recklessly agreed by Gordon “50 days to save the planet” Brown and Barack “back of the queue” Obama – a forlorn hope now that the USA will no longer be contributing although the UK is unfortunately still committed. Yet we in the West (USA now excepted) continue to spend untold billions to no useful purpose, nothing more than pointless, self-harming virtue signalling given that it has been calculated from the UN’s own figures that all the painful emissions reductions pledged by 2030 will have only a 0.05ºC impact on global temperatures by the year 2100.

The fourth glaring problem with climate and energy policy is that contrary to the establishment claims that “the science is settled” (Ruth Davidson claims it is “unequivocal”), this is clearly not the case. In fact it is looking less and less settled with each passing year as global temperatures inconveniently refuse to conform to the establishment’s “Project Fear” man-made global warming narrative. It needs to be remembered that the mandate of the politicised UN IPCC is restricted to the study of man-made climate risks, not climate in the round. The problem is that the predictions of the UN IPCC’s dubiously simplified computer climate models of steadily increasing man-made global warming at a slow but steady rate of 0.2ºC or more per decade are clearly seriously flawed. They run far too “hot” relative to real world temperature measurements, a clear case of GIGO computer programming – Garbage In, Garbage Out. The fact is that despite steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (which is helping to green the planet), man-made global warming remains indiscernible. Incredibly, this indiscernible man-made global warming is the sole and shockingly unquestioned basis of all our climate and energy policies and all the alleged “climate change” scares which hysterical politicians keep postulating without any scientific justification, such as Ruth Davidson’s unfounded and unbelievable claim that “[man-made] climate change is continuing to wreak devastating damage to the way we live”. Excluding the obviously natural short-term global warming which started around 2015, global temperatures have flatlined for the last 20 years, with no (or indiscernible) trace of any signature slow but steady alleged man-made global warming. The sudden warming from 2015 was caused by the natural solar/oceanic effects of a huge and prolonged El Nino which has now fallen back under a weak La Nina to the levels at which the propagandist Met Office reluctantly conceded in 2014 there had been no global warming since the turn of the century – the so-called “pause”.

In fact there have been only about 20 years of sustained global warming in the last 70 years, the brief warming spell of the 1980s and 90s. The temperature record for that period also shows no sign of any slow but steady warming, just rapid, apparently random fluctuations between warming and cooling which are clearly natural in origin as they match the ENSO Multivariate Index. The net global warming over that period appears to have been due to the ratcheting effect of a series of strong, natural, sunlight-fuelled El Ninos. If so, that would mean there has been no man-made global warming in the last 70 years and therefore that there has never been any man-made global warming as atmospheric CO2 levels before 1950 were too low. The politicians in charge of the UN IPCC reject this compelling alternative explanation but to paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would, wouldn’t they. Climate alarmists are also unable to give a credible explanation for the significant global cooling which took place from the 1940s to the mid 1970s in the midst of the exponential post-war boom in fossil fuel consumption, a cooling trend which suddenly and unexpectedly switched to global warming within the space of just a year or so. That sudden switch shows that despite high and steeply rising levels of atmospheric CO2, the cooling was due to natural climate variability, e.g. a preponderance of La Ninas, rather than due to the alleged negation of supposedly inevitable CO2 global warming by pollution or aerosols as climate alarmists unconvincingly claim to try to prop up their unconvincing man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. A further rebuttal of that unconvincing CO2 hypothesis is that there was a period of global warming in the early decades of the 20th century which closely matched the global warming which occurred during the 1980s and 90s yet according to the UN IPCC atmospheric CO2 only started to influence the climate from around 1950. Therefore if the warming at the start of the century was entirely natural, why shouldn’t the almost identical warming at the end of the century have been entirely natural as well, as appears to have been the case? The politicians of the UN IPCC are unable to admit to this very likely possibility because to do so would leave their entire argument in ruins, given that global temperatures have remained flat ever since that previous century global warming. The consensus climate science scare story of the mid 1970s was that the planet was heading into a new Ice Age but it didn’t take them long to junk that and switch to the man-made global warming scare. Now, some thirty years later and in contrast to the obviously flawed UN IPCC climate models, real world global climate indicators such as the progression of natural solar and oceanic cycles suggest that the planet could experience global cooling over coming decades. The unproven hypothesis of dangerous global warming caused by man-made CO2 is altogether too flimsy and politically driven to be taken seriously.

Those four glaring problems show that the “climate change” Emperor is not dressed in a suit of fine clothes but is actually stark naked. I have challenged many different politicians on these points over the years but not one of them has ever come back with a credible rebuttal (just as Ruth Davidson has no credible justification for the unbelievable “Project Fear” climate assertions in her Scotsman article), stuck as they all are in their indefensible establishment climate change bubble. There are politician exceptions of course (pejoratively labelled “deniers”), individuals who have applied independent thought and study to the subject rather than just parroting the propagandist mantras of the climate establishment. My own MP toes the party line on this issue in both senses – establishment and SNP – i.e. he is firmly in the climate alarmist camp, which incidentally illustrates how climate policy is mostly dictated by the emotional prejudices and positioning of party politics rather than by objective rationality. My MP has said publicly he “dares to dream” that he could reverse global warming, although he didn’t explain how or by how much. Would he take us back to the damp and dreary 1960s or even to the storms, famines and River Thames ice fairs of the Little Ice Age? Even supposing we could control it, what is the optimal global temperature? Glaciers have been melting and sea levels rising since natural global warming started to lift us out of the Little Ice Age over 170 years ago, in fact ever since the much warmer Holocene Climate Optimum of about 8,000 years ago. Even the politicised UN IPCC say in their Fifth Assessment Report there is no evidence that current global temperatures are causing more extreme weather events.

I used to accuse climate alarmist politicians like Ruth Davidson of taking the electorate for fools over their climate change policies which have always been so obviously unworkable and pointlessly self-harming that I assumed they had some ulterior motive, e.g. to further the global redistribution of wealth. I have belatedly realised that there is a simpler explanation: these politicians and their establishment backers are taking themselves for fools. They have all succumbed to a severe case of “groupthink” delusional thinking, mentally blocking out all the contrarian delusion-shattering facts which are staring them in the face. The fairy-tale of the Emperor’s new clothes is the perfect analogy.

Unfortunately they are so set in their dogma and the establishment propaganda is so insistent that many of the electorate (and many politicians) have been brainwashed into going along with it. I fear the only thing that will make these alarmist politicians see sense is the onset of electricity power cuts in cold, dark, windless midwinter. This past winter Britain reportedly suffered its worst winter death toll in 42 years yet this could have been even worse as we narrowly managed to avoid power cuts thanks to the heroic electricity supply contribution from our still remaining coal power stations (gas was in short supply) which in the near future are all due to be shut down by our irresponsible government without providing any functionally equivalent replacements. Unbelievably, they are planning to run down our fleet of gas power stations as well. An estimated 20,000 more Brits than average died between December and March, at least partly because our regressive energy policies forced fuel impoverished pensioners to choose between heating and eating. Getting free of the climate-obsessed EU should allow us to set more rational climate and energy policies, if we seize the opportunity. In the meantime, climate realists can only try to shame our climate alarmist politicians like Ruth Davidson out of their denial of reality and encourage them to switch to a more realistic climate policy of adaption as and when necessary. They should concentrate on emissions-free nuclear and moderate-emissions gas from our remaining North Sea supplies, hopefully to be superseded by natural gas fracked in the UK to maintain our energy security and save on imports. That approach might even achieve just as good if not better emissions reductions than our current shambolic, virtue signalling approach, undoubtedly at much lower cost.

In her Scotsman article Ruth Davidson confuses the issue by conflating environmentalism with climate change and by failing to distinguish between natural climate change and alleged man-made climate change, as in her incoherent phrase “Climate change is real”. She also misrepresents Margaret Thatcher who in her later years disparaged the climate change movement as “a marvellous excuse for worldwide supranational socialism”. Thatcher argued for good stewardship of the environment but it is very unlikely that she would have felt the need to make any futile, ruinously expensive “climate justice” gesture to atone for the opportunistic single issue of atmospheric CO2 given that the industrialisation we started has degraded the planet in so many other ways, e.g. resource depletion, littered oceans, littered outer space, environmental pollution, asphalted countryside, urban sprawl and so on.

Ruth Davidson needs to be reined in on her madcap Scottish energy policy ideas as energy is not even a devolved matter. Her proposal that by 2030 she could supply 50% of Scotland’s energy from renewables is as delusional as Labour’s 2017 manifesto policy that by 2030 they could supply 60% of the UK’s energy from low-carbon or renewable sources, dismantled in this open email to politicians. (It also analyses how the climate change scare has been blown up out of all proportion.) That open email links to this main paper which analyses the infeasibility of the UK government’s plans for 80% decarbonisations by 2050. Finally, if Ruth Davidson has to resort to claiming that the glaring policy problems listed above are “lies”, as her Scotsman article suggests, just because they go against her precious establishment consensus, then she has already lost the argument. Her dogmatic, belligerent attitude on climate change could quite possibly lose her the vote as well.

Douglas S Brodie

Nairn, April 2018

Posted in Wind farms | 2 Comments

Claire Perry Blames British Gas For Her Own Climate Policies

A well thought out analysis of the situation and a well deserved slap to Claire Perry MP and Energy and Climate Change Minister.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

A 5.5%, or £60 a year, rise in energy prices for British Gas customers on default deals has been branded as “unjustified” by the government.

 

View original post 1,103 more words

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

Read and weep

via ‘Renewables Are Cheap’ Myth Busted: Full Cost of Wind & Solar Simply Staggering

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

Silence is Golden

Apologies if I haven’t posted much recently but there are so many varied angles from electric drive themselves cars to Russian gas and many comments on both. As to wind farms we cannot be ceased to be amazed that despite years of claiming the subsidies are necessary the industry is still putting applications in for wind farms. Should these now be truly cheaper than chips can we have all our subsidies back please! We still see the idiot factor in play and the fact that councils still have Climate Change committees and employees, who have to justify their existence, creates the situation in The Highland Council area where tourists areas are losing their loos, Community Councils, in the time of community empowerment, are having budgets slashed to unsustainable levels, and yet THC have just spent £2.3 million on solar panels as an investment. Some investment. Whilst everyone else suffers austerity the Climate bunnies are exempt. And yet ‘Climate change’ is a natural variation and for those of a certain age we can mostly say been there got the T-shirt. Nothing in weather is particularly new. Just read history! Here we have a good display of both Group think and Cognitive dissonance. Basically none of these climate bunnies want to admit that they might be wrong. Otherwise the dole queue beckons and all those posh expense paid conferences would be a thing of the past.

Now I shall move on to transport. The Minister in Westminster claims that diesel cars will be removed within a decade which demonstrates a total lack of engineering knowledge as diesel cars over the last twenty years have become cleaner than petrol. Technology has moved on whilst it seems the Minister’s advisors are totally out of touch with the reality. The snow came and suddenly those diesel guzzling land rovers were the knights in shining armour. The reality is that commercial transport needs diesel. There is no realistic alternative of a fuel source with such energy density. The First Minister talks of an all electric A9. Bah humbug! If all the vehicles were electric and the range is thirty to eighty miles and the A9 is 273miles how many charging points will you need considering the length of time it takes to re-charge an ev and the average number of daily users of the A9, which presently stands at 142,000. Do your maths. Certainly a skill alien to the First Minister! Never mind where you will get all that electricity from. Certainly not wind farms on a windless day! The other issue is that if all cars are electric and tax free who pays for the road repairs, especially considering that battery powered cars are much heavier and more damaging to the road. Looks like an excuse for pay by mile road pricing which will at a stroke take away the running cost advantage of electric cars which presently pay no road fuel duty and only 5% vat. The way local councils presently subsidize many ‘free’ electric refuelling points is unsustainable and clearly ludicrous when Scottish Councils are having to make deep cuts in basic infrastructure.

So, not much to say but much to think about. Many will support electric self driven cars and if I lived in a city I might well see the benefits. Driving up the A9 reading a book or watching the scenery has it’s benefits. However as many cars are old and the cost of new is beyond many the truth is that whatever you may do it doesn’t stop someone else running in to you. Only at a time when every car was self driven could some possibility of an automated system be deliverable. I don’t see it in my lifetime. Just to prove a point we have news of an Uber ‘autonomous’ car killing a pedestrian and another involve in an RTA.  It does rather illustrate the point that the mixture of autonomous cars and people needs some critical thinking. After all there are hardly any self driven cars on the road and those that there are need a safety driver. Bit of a pointless gesture to have an autonomous car that needs someone in the driving seat. Can’t see that saving much money!

uber

 

On cars, am I just too ancient and feeble or has the cost of cars become horrendous. I walked past our motor mile last week and even second hand cars (pre-loved in motor industry speak) were mostly £26k+. New cars are now regularly in the £60k to £85k brackets.  And they don’t have car salesmen any longer. They have what? Customer interface operatives? The latest Range Rover SV Autobiography is £172,000. I think I will wait until the first years depreciation is out of the way! Electric cars are the buzz word of the industry with the new Polestar(Volvo) competing with the Tesla. Note the Tesla company is still to make a profit but shares are still hypersonic. BL eat your heart out! However without a government subsidy the prices would be even more ridiculous in comparison with their fossil fuelled brothers. Reality is that the industry is reacting to the forthcoming high level fines for exceeding 95g CO2/Km target in 2020/21. Just look at the tripe on the EU website ! The only way to reduce to those levels across the range is to establish a percentage of either hybrid or EV vehicles as part of the equation as they reduce the average statically. Take into account the manufacturing CO2 production and the CO2 output of replacement batteries and the truth is EV vehicles whole of life CO2 emissions are very similar if not more than a petrol car. The fines across the board could well finance the EU post Brexit such a scale as they are.

SO guys and gals, I am still here and still a grumpy ageing fossil. Plus ca change!

Posted in Wind farms | 2 Comments

Deadly Cool: Wind Turbine Throws Ice Chunks Into US College

STOP THESE THINGS

German renewable energy ‘targets’.

Throwing 10 tonne blades hundreds of metres, and chunks thereof, for kilometres isn’t the limit of the wholly unnecessary risk created by giant wind turbines.

No, in cooler climes, neighbours are trained in the art of dodging lethal flying chunks of ice, too.

To the uninitiated, ‘ice throw’ (another wind industry euphemism) might sound like the kind of stunning move that figure skaters, Torvill and Dean used to win Olympic medals and plaudits, in their heyday.

To those in the know, it’s just another terrifying part of being forced to live in an industrial nightmare, shoe-horned into once safe, peaceful and pleasant rural communities.

12 months ago, during the last northern Winter, we reported on a family of Germans who were lucky to survive their icy brush with so-called ‘green’ energy: Wind Turbine Ice Capades: German Wind Farm Neighbour Cheats Death, Dodging Flying Ice Chunks

View original post 396 more words

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

Do Politicians ever listen?

From Climate Change to wind farms and even electric cars, it is sometimes a question that needs an answer. In reality a large number of vested interests from WWF to SSE, from Tesla to HS2 have a well refined lobbying process to influence our politicians. From luncheons at the Dorchester to tickets for Wembly and the Five Nations, the ordinary and informed member of the public cannot compete. However many try and Doug Brodie has been trying to inform and educate for years. Here is his latest offering.

To: All Tory MPs, MSPs and MEPs      I sincerely hope that Mr Greg Clark and Ms Claire Perry will take the time to read this email carefully

Cc: Selected SNP MPs and MSPs; Ms Rebecca Long-Bailey MP; Mr Ed Miliband MP, Mr Graham Stringer MP

Bcc: Campaigners for climate and energy policy realism; selected members of the press

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Infeasibility of our 80% Decarbonisation Plans (Ed 2)

My updated paper on this subject is available online here. I urge you to read it for the sake of your hard-pressed constituents. To summarise, it explains how the inappropriate so‑called renewables technologies chosen by politicians to supposedly “tackle climate change” are leading our country into a disastrous energy supply dead end leaving us mired in the unviable policies of technically unqualified Greenthinkers. It ponders why the establishment is blind to the engineering realities which dictate that we can never wean ourselves off fossil fuels and sustain our growing, high tech and hopefully globally competitive economy using expensive, intermittent, energy sparse, unscalable renewables, also ignoring the fact that these low productivity technologies are of little interest to most of our global competitors (ex‑EU). The answer is clear from reading any Guardian article on climate change with its echo chamber of irrational, technically blinkered, self‑flagellating readers’ comments. The climate change propaganda put out by that other pillar of the establishment, the biased BBC, is just as shameless.

My paper also reviews the status of the climate change debate and shows how the climate risks and fears stoked up by politicians, “follow the money” businesses and scientists who benefit from the scare, anti-capitalist environmentalists and the mostly left‑wing media have been wildly exaggerated.

So far I have sent my paper to several ministers and two select committees (S&T and BEIS) but have had just one dismissive reply. That leads me to think that the members of these committees, the government itself and the majority of politicians are sticking their heads in the sand on the scientific and engineering realities of energy and climate policy. Hence this follow-up email to bring this vital issue to their attention one last time.

Since then I have noted three items which support my contentions, given below. They run a bit longer than originally intended – I got carried away! – but if you can spare the time to read them there is much to learn that is seldom if ever reported in the mainstream media. I particularly hope you will read the first item on Labour’s 2017 manifesto energy policy as it provides a very useful case study in muddled thinking – it looks as if their manifesto has confused energy with electricity, or they have been inexcusably careless in their wording. Along the way it identifies what could be a major cause of the UK’s low productivity. The second item, which includes a lesson from Margaret Thatcher, is on how the climate change scare has been blown up out of all proportion and what politicians should do about this if they feel concern for their hard-pressed, energy poor constituents, with the added benefit that it would free them from the out-of-control monster they have created for themselves. The third is on the precarious security of our gas supplies and fracking, which Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP all oppose. The final paragraph asks some of the most critical yet politically dodged energy questions of our times.

I put it to you that you are stuck on a climate change treadmill you can’t get off, hoist on the petard of your own climate pseudo-science, painted into a corner by your own untenable climate commitments, chained to climate and energy policies which can only end badly for all of us. The longer you ignore reality, the worse it will get, especially for the poor. Please read on for my objective synthesis of energy and climate facts, all carefully referenced via hyperlinks.

Labour’s 2017 manifesto policy on energy

Labour took the easy approach that no expense need be spared, no reasoned justification given nor consent sought to push ahead with the establishment’s  futile and ruinous Climate Change Act imperative of reducing CO2 emissions. In a few short sentences of their 2017 manifesto Labour commit to sweeping energy infrastructure changes involving vast expenditure yet this upheaval would have been pointless as it would have had negligible impact on the global climate (explained below) with very little benefit to fossil fuel sustainability (due to using CCS, explained below). All it would have done other than maybe win a few eco-activist votes is make UK plc less competitive and worsen fuel poverty which here in Scotland reached a shocking 39% in 2014 (since massaged down slightly) after a decade of misguided eco‑policies. Yet Labour had the gall (or naivety) to promise that energy costs would be kept “affordable”.

The Labour Manifesto 2017 energy policy states that “60 per cent of the UK’s energy will come from zero-carbon or renewable sources by 2030”. Their inconsistently-phrased “zero/low-carbon” reference is to “state-of-the-art low-carbon gas”, taken to mean conventional gas-fired electricity abated of CO2 emissions by use of very expensive, unproven at national scale “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) which they also commit to in their manifesto. So‑called “bonkers” CCS is also supported by the Lib Dems and SNP and the Tories have not ruled it out. Labour’s ambitious 2030 timescale and the lack of detail on their “60% energy sources” suggests that they do not understand the hugely demanding implications of their own policy, as the following simple sums should make clear. Not that the Labour Party is unique in this respect as none of our political parties has ever spelled out what it would take to implement the self-imposed legally binding 80% decarbonisation target of the Climate Change Act: none has ever produced even an outline plan extending to 2050.

A first step in analysing Labour’s 2030 energy policy, which is just an intermediate stage of the government’s own 2050 Climate Change Act policy, is to note that electricity supplied roughly 20% of UK final energy in 2016, generated by a mix of fossil fuel and low carbon sources: gas 11%, coal 2%, nuclear 4% and renewables 5% (difficult to use, incapable of deployment at large scale wind and solar were 2.3% and 0.6% respectively). Fossil fuels supplied the energy for the other 80% of the economy. These numbers, which seldom get reported anywhere, are given in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2017 (Dukes) and politicians ought to think very, very carefully about their implications for our 80% decarbonisation targets – do the maths, it’s not rocket science. The Climate Change Act, which Owen Paterson MP has estimated could cost up to £1.3 trillion in these times of austerity and Brexit challenge, is about supposedly transitioning from our present heavy reliance on fossil fuels to a sustainable “low carbon” economy but as my analysis shows and as common sense dictates, our ineffectual implementation efforts are infeasible on many grounds, particularly technical and financial. The only feasible, still hugely expensive way to get close to the 80% target would be through a combination of high energy density emissions-free nuclear, which many climate catastrophists such as the SNP paradoxically reject, together with medium-emissions gas for essential balancing (see my main paper for details).

Next, a slight complication to be taken into account in converting annualised energy consumption into the capacity needed to supply peak demand. The fossil fuel wider economy copes with peak demand by, for example, supplying more gas to the grid or more fuel to filling stations. Sizing an electrified economy to cope with the peak demands of, for example, winter domestic heating and overnight charging of electric vehicles translates into building more power stations than are required just to supply the annual consumption. The peak demand uplift will be difficult to estimate but for this ballpark estimate I will assume that one unit of electricity generation capacity will support just 0.7 annualised units of the fossil fuel economy (see my main paper for details).

Please bear with me on the precision! I will presume that Labour’s intent would be to increase and decarbonise UK electricity generation from 20% to 44% of UK final energy which, assuming approximate equivalence between similar energy types and applying the above 0.7 factor, would allow the fossil fuel economy to be decarbonised by about 17% from 80% to 63% of UK final energy, giving a “zero-carbon/renewables energy sources” total of about 61%. This 17% of the transport, heating and industrial fossil fuel economy would have to be expensively converted (decarbonised) to use the new, expensive low carbon electricity instead of relatively cheap fossil fuels which for the foreseeable future will be the fuel of choice of most of our global competitors (ex‑EU).

Based on 2016 data, taking a “sensible” fuel type mix (not too many undependable renewables) and in round numbers, this 2030 decarbonised electricity could require the following: zero coal (the current plan “cooked up over a cup of coffee” as flippantly boasted by our irresponsibly reckless Climate Change Minister Claire Perry is to close down all coal by 2025); a net doubling of emissions-free nuclear (probably the most that can be expected by 2030 given the glacially slow progress to date, 9.5 GW capacity in 2016); a quadrupling of gas-fired electricity (33 GW capacity in 2016, load factor just 49%), all fitted with expensive, energy hungry (10-15% more gas plus system overheads), probably unviable CCS pipelined to undersea reservoirs to store the by-product CO2 without leakage for posterity; and a doubling of expensive, unreliable renewables (36 GW in 2016 with a load factor of less than 30%). Acceptance of severe blackouts when there is no wind and sun in cold midwinter when power is needed most would require only a tripling of CCS gas electricity!

A few comments on this presumed fuel mix: The CO2 emissions from gas-fired power stations are not that bad, especially if difficult to balance renewables were to be curtailed, so why bother with expensive, pointless CCS? A mainly nuclear and unabated gas combination makes more sense technically, it would save on finite supplies of fossil fuels by not having to power CCS and could spare us from yet more expensive, intermittent, “sick joke” so-called clean wind power which many studies have shown yields only minor net CO2 emissions savings (this study 2.8%). This would have the added benefit that fewer gas-fired power stations would be required as they would be able to run more efficiently – fewer starts and stops, less ramping up and down and operating at part load. Intermittent renewables are, and always have been, a dead end as even the Guardian has now realised. My main paper explains by a simple calculation which leaves no room for wishful thinking that for the foreseeable future there is no prospect of grid‑scale battery or any other storage technology smoothing out the intermittent supply from renewables over not uncommon multi-day UK-wide becalmings and winter lack of sun, as even the Huffington Post confirms.

Assuming the fanatical Claire Perry doesn’t get her way against massive local opposition, any new wind power will be offshore yet the UK already has more expensive, environmentally stressed, difficult to maintain offshore wind than any other country in the world. Recent industry misinformation claiming that the price of offshore wind electricity had fallen by 50% was spread widely by credulous reporters before the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the claim was not true. Low bids have been submitted for 2021 offshore wind contracts but as it is not credible that costs could have been cut so far so fast, these bids are thought to be a commercial ploy, gambling on getting a better price when the time comes because the bid prices are so completely uneconomic they would have to cancel the contracts, which they could do with minor penalty. Meanwhile, the new Beatrice wind farm in the outer Moray Firth has a strike price of £140/MWh at 2012 prices index-linked for 15 years, three times the market price. On top of that, if this new wind farm is being build to supply rising national demand for electricity then it will have to be expensively duplicated by new conventional plant to take over when there is not enough wind. If it is being build just to save CO2 emissions (why?) then no duplication is needed but it will still make essential conventional plant even more “uninvestable” as well as increasing constraint payments and degrading the stability of the grid when the wind is too strong. Either way our energy bills will go and up and up. Enough of this madness!

A simple analysis as done in my main paper shows that any such permutation of electricity generation mix and the concomitant economy-wide decarbonisation along the overall 80% target trajectory is infeasible on many levels: technical, financial/commercial, logistical, environmental and political.

A quadrupling of gas-fired electricity supply by 2030 would be logistically and commercially impossible, especially since the politics of climate change long ago made new gas power stations uninvestable. The €820 million 884 MW Carrington gas-fired power station which opened in March 2017 to buck the trend was the first large-scale gas plant of its kind to come online in Britain for four years. Over 100 more such new gas-fired plants (all fitted with very expensive CCS equipment) could be needed to meet the above 2030 electricity generation mix, not counting replacement of retirals. Muddled Labour might not even have enough gas to power all those new power stations as their manifesto promises to ban fracking and North Sea gas could “dry up” within a decade. The muddled Tories are just as bad in a different way as they want to cut back on gas-fired electricity as well as shut down all coal-fired electricity in favour of renewables and international interconnectors in a cheating, irresponsible attempt to meet their precious carbon budgets. It is cheating because a main motivation for using interconnectors seems to be that the imported electricity is sneakily considered “emissions-free” in government thinking: there is no “carbon accounting” for interconnector foreign-generated CO2 emissions in Dukes. It is irresponsible because it will lead to disaster in cold, dark midwinter if, for example, there is no wind and the expected interconnector supply dries up, as could happen when all of Western Europe is becalmed for days on end and France has run down its currently reliable nuclear fleet in favour of green diversification. These weak-minded lemmings need to stiffen their backbones and stand up against the quasi-religious orthodoxy which is leading them to commit such irresponsible and pointless damage to our energy infrastructure.

In the context of the 2050 Climate Change Act targets, Labour’s hugely expensive 2030 intermediate stage would provide for decarbonisation of only a very small fraction of the fossil fuel economy, nowhere near the full 80% target.

Labour show themselves to be totally unrealistic if they think they could suddenly, by 2030, quadruple our national gas-fired power capacity as well as engineer their profligate, untrialled pipe-dream of a nationwide CCS system to meet their pie in the sky decarbonisation schemes. Implementing all of that would send our energy bills sky‑high yet Labour cynically (or naively) promised to keep energy costs “affordable”. On top of all that, how do they think they could implement a 17% decarbonisation of our high inertia wider fossil fuel economy by 2030, equivalent to electrifying over one third of all road transport and domestic heating, especially when there is no obvious public support for such an expensive, never justified upheaval? There might be a climate change consensus among politicians (only five MPs voted against the 2008 Climate Change Act) but the electorate has been disenfranchised from the debate. We need proper justification and a coherent, believable strategy, not make-believe Greenthinking based on using ruinously inappropriate technologies which is getting us nowhere towards a truly sustainable “low carbon” or even “beyond carbon” economy, for the far distant future when fossil fuels finally run out.

It is possible that Labour were just careless in their wording and did not intend the 2030 scope of their manifesto policy to be so sweeping. They perhaps meant 60% of electricity rather than energy from zero-carbon/renewable sources (there is about a factor of five difference) which is what Jeremy Corbyn has proposed (actually 65%). However their 60% energy policy was repeated without qualification by their spokesperson in a recent Guardian article, which was the “gold dust” finding that prompted me to write this email. Either way, it shows that they are like children playing with expensive toys which they really don’t understand and that probably goes all the way back to the architect of Labour’s 2008 Climate Change Act, an English literature graduate Friends of the Earth campaigner and her boss, PPE career politician Ed Miliband. It is said that Tony Blair made this mistake when he signed the UK up to the 2020 EU target of getting 20% of energy from renewables thinking it was for 20% of electricity. Unsurprisingly we are on course to miss these 2020 EU targets. Scottish Tory MP Paul Masterton recently made this very schoolboy error, ironically while trying to promote renewable energy projects and boasting about the big windfarm in his own constituency, when he claimed in the House of Commons that “more than half of Scottish energy consumption is met by renewable sources”. It’s probably more like 10% and as a result of the SNP’s obsession with ineffectual windmills, Scotland is already dependent on imported backup electricity from England to keep the lights on, never mind by 2032 when the SNP would like to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles in Scotland in favour of  all-electric, with the double whammy that by that time Scotland’s existing baseload nuclear plants will have been closed down.

All the political parties are clearly technically “unproficient” on the vital subject of energy (to put it politely), as shown by the various quotes and policies in this email. It is surely a very sorry state of affairs when technically unqualified politicians are making critical national infrastructure decisions advised by dubiously qualified civil servants who reply to worried constituents using eco-language which would go down well in the environment pages of the climate-deranged Guardian. Do any of our politicians understand the risks and economic damage caused by their technically unviable energy policies? I have listened to MP and MSP debates on fuel poverty where the damaging effects of the Climate Change Act were never even mentioned, as if the Act is an unavoidable fact of life. Or are our politicians happy to meekly go along with whatever the “green energy basket-case” EU tells them to do, or the loony Guardian, or the “follow the money” snake oil renewables industry lobbyists? Do politicians think that getting energy from the wind and sun (with lots of fossil fuel help and lots of real pollution which they don’t acknowledge) just feels so tree-huggingly right to them that there is no need to question its viability?

Politicians have been living in a parallel universe (actually a groupthink bubble) of climate and energy fantasy and self-delusion for so long that they are wholly unprepared for the shock of discovering that real world engineering basic facts are showing their fantasy world low carbon nirvana to be unattainable. They shouldn’t be surprised to discover that, despite the climate change propaganda and brainwashing which assails us all daily, they have failed to carry the public with them on their mission to supposedly “save the planet” after the way they have for years insulted the intelligence of their constituents with their clearly unworkable climate and energy policies which have done nothing but worsen fuel poverty and erode business competitiveness, all the while fobbing-off all reasoned objections with their delusional, unjustified assertions, e.g. “To stay reliant on fossil fuels would mean tying ourselves to increasingly unstable supplies which could endanger our energy security” – Theresa May who in 2008 apparently believed that we could run the economy using mainly intermittent renewables (and some nuclear), and “In order to have any hope of keeping the rise in temperature to 2C – let alone meeting our Paris agreement target of 1.5C – we need to keep 80% of fossil fuels in the ground. This can and must be done.” – the gullible (or dissembling) Jeremy Corbyn.

Politicians should worry more about “keeping the lights on” over the next few years as old coal and nuclear power plants get shut down with few new station orders in the pipeline and the national capacity margin already uncomfortably tight. They should concentrate on making the economy more competitive instead of hobbling it with the uncompetitive energy costs of their hugely expensive Climate Change Act distraction which in any case would have negligible impact on the global climate even if CO2 were a dangerous influence (which is unproven and looking increasingly unlikely, see next item) given that most of the rest of the world intends to carry on increasing their consumption of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and the UK accounts for just 1% of global CO2 emissions.

The government frets about low UK productivity but their own calamitous climate and energy policies, which in the main are interchangeable with those of the other parties, are perhaps much to blame. The Tory “Clean Growth” strategy which claims that “The low carbon economy could grow 11% per year between 2015 and 2030, four times faster than the projected growth of the economy as a whole”, the Labour manifesto which claims that “The low-carbon economy is one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors … It employed an estimated 447,000 employees in the UK in 2015 and saw over £77 billion in turnover” and the SNP boast that Scotland has “over 58,000 low carbon and renewable energy jobs” show clearly that these parties all believe that “green” energy jobs are of themselves a benefit to society. This is the economics of the madhouse as the low energy density nature of these technologies makes them manpower intensive and low productivity, made worse because many only exist through government subsidies or patronage and are functionally redundant discounting their CO2 emissions savings which realistically are of no practical value, especially “bonkers” CCS and wind and solar which have to be expensively duplicated by conventional plant with 24/7 availability, themselves doomed to low productivity through being crowded out by intermittent renewables with higher grid priority. The sad truth is that many of these politically-mandated green jobs and the subsidised green plant that goes with them are just an expensive encumbrance to the productive parts of the economy. This huge redundant overhead (see the £77 billion a year figure quoted above) has to be paid for via our energy bills which creates a double whammy for hard-pressed householders (in Labour parlance “the many, not the few”) who get hit again when businesses pass on their increased energy costs and climate levies by raising the prices of their goods and services. Yet faced with this crisis of low productivity and escalating costs, the government’s latest Industrial Strategy makes no reference to the ruinous Climate Change Act yet witters on about “moving towards a regenerative circular economy”. It also has the presumption to say that we have a “moral duty to address climate change”, the irrational, leftist argument for pointless self-flagellation, particularly unjustified in light of the ongoing 20-year standstill in global temperatures. For Theresa May and Greg Clark to describe such economic self-harm as “an opportunity” is delusional, apparently believing that using inappropriate technologies which do nothing but inflate our energy costs will somehow confer an economic advantage or imagining that we might become a leader in expensive renewable widgets which the world will come clamouring to buy from us.

The late government chief scientific advisor Professor Sir David MacKay (a self-confessed greenie) warned years ago of the futility of trying to use wind and solar power as a source of national electricity supply. In his last interview before his untimely death he said that the idea that renewable energy could power the UK was an “appalling delusion”. Instead of heeding his wise words our politicians have embarked on a futile attempt to defy engineering reality, leading us sleepwalking into an EU-style “green energy basket-case” economy. It is as if politicians have been using Orwellian doublethink or some kind of post‑normal thinking process (or maybe just wishful thinking coupled with technical ignorance) to turn a blind eye to this fundamental flaw in their Climate Change Act designs. One only has to look at a simple pie chart (slightly out of date but the only pie chart I could find) showing how dependent our overall economy is on fossil fuels and nuclear power and a simple bar chart showing how dependent we are on them to generate our electricity, especially in cold dark sometimes windless midwinter, to see (and surely understand – again, it’s not rocket science) the sheer futility of trying to power our economy using intermittent windmills and solar panels. Hopefully the government’s recent suspension of any new, regressive subsidies on renewables until at least 2025 is a sign that the penny is finally starting to drop.

An independent analysis based on the government’s own figures calculates that on current projections, between now and 2030 (never mind 2050) climate policies in the power sector will cost the UK £216 billion, equivalent to about £8,000 per household. The government recently asked Professor Dieter Helm to carry out a cost of energy review. His key findings were that the cost of energy is too high (obviously) and that the energy market badly needs to be reformed. He proposes sweeping changes including the introduction of a universal “carbon price” (tax) across the whole economy and the phasing out of feed-in tariffs and contracts for difference in favour of unified “equivalent firm price” capacity options which, if implemented, will force the costs of intermittency onto those who cause them. This would at last provide a level energy playing field and would put a big question mark over the future of free-riding renewables and even “sound the death knell” for new wind and solar projects in the UK (see also here). If ministers stick to current policies he concludes:

“It will continue the unnecessary high costs of the British energy system, and as a result perpetuate fuel poverty, weaken industrial competitiveness, and undermine public support for decarbonisation.”

It was totally dishonest of Labour to present this 60% low carbon energy policy to the electorate as a viable plan, especially when presented alongside their pledge to “ensure that energy costs are affordable for consumers and businesses”. They clearly don’t understand the damage their own policies would cause.

However I don’t remember any criticism of the Labour energy plans by the Tories at the time of the election, or since. The Tories are in no position to criticise as the Labour plans are just an intermediate stage of the grander Tory plans. The difference is that the Tory plans cannot be scrutinised as easily (my main paper makes an attempt) because they have not committed to any such infeasible intermediate target. I can but hope that this modest analysis helps them to reconsider. I also suggest that they ditch their Orwellian Newspeak “Clean Growth” slogan because it suggests that life-giving, overwhelmingly natural CO2 is unclean and that growth can best be achieved by using so‑called “clean”, meaning expensive, low productivity, dubiously “green” technologies like wind power (“a sick joke ministers should be ashamed of”) and CCS when unilaterally wasting money and resources on these pointless technologies is mostly a hindrance to growth. This government has dashed the brief hope that sanity might prevail raised by David Cameron’s 2013 moment of epiphany when he reportedly said “we’ve got to get rid of all this green cr@p”.

Climate change politics going nowhere

The November climate summit in Bonn achieved next to nothing according to their own press release. The December “One Planet” climate summit in Paris was also little more than a talking shop, once again demonstrating the establishment’s detachment from (engineering) reality and most notably with President Macron saying that “we are losing the battle” against alleged man-made climate change and that as a consequence of not making even more impossibly onerous cuts in CO2 emissions, Pacific islands could disappear beneath the waves within as little as 50 years.

Macron is a typical Western politician who likes to flaunt his virtue pretending to be “saving the planet” when in reality all he is doing is stoking irresponsible, pseudo-scientific climate alarmism to promote highly regressive unworkable  Greenthinking  “solutions” which inevitably do nothing for the climate but cause great economic harm, with the poorest in society suffering the most. He is a propagandist who is trying to scare the general public by shamelessly conflating a natural phenomenon we can do nothing about with a postulated, unproven man-made problem, ignoring all the  scientific  and observational studies which show that these islands are not at risk from human influence. He also ignores the common sense evidence of the ongoing 20‑year standstill in global temperatures which all by itself has put a huge question mark against such tedious “Chicken Licken the sky is falling!“ climate change scaremongering.

What’s more, Macron’s “worthless” Paris Agreement is certain to fail on scientific, financial and political grounds. On science, because it has been calculated from the UN’s own figures that all the painful 2030 CO2 emissions reductions pledged under the agreement will have only a 0.05ºC impact on global temperatures by the year 2100. On finance, because it has been estimated that $58 trillion would be needed to meet the UN’s global warming goals. On politics, because the agreement is totally unbalanced, with the vast bulk of the world’s countries exempt from reducing their emissions. Yet all the politicians (bar Trump) rave about how wonderful an agreement it is! Who do they think they are kidding, other than themselves? Or are they all dissembling?

It is worth examining Macron’s disgraceful sea level rise scaremongering in some detail as climate alarmists get away far too easily with stoking confusion and unfounded alarm on this topic, aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media. Glacier ice has been melting for the last 11,500 years of our precious ice age interglacial and in that time sea levels have risen about 300 to 400 feet (obviously nothing to do with alleged man-made global warming). Global temperatures have fallen over the last 8,000 years which has slowed the melting. The current average rate of sea level rise is thought to be about six inches per century, with negligible rate change in recent times as man-made CO2 emissions have risen, and with this renowned expert saying the rate is no more than 2 to 3 inches per century, either figure making a mockery of Macron’s intelligence-insulting scare. The fact is, however, that current global temperatures will melt more of the ice and there is nothing we can do about it other than gradually adapt as necessary. A further rise of 20 to 30 feet is possible, e.g. in the extreme event that the 10,000 feet thick Greenland ice sheet were to melt completely. Assuming the UN IPCC’s worst-case prognostications (which have been disputed by many independent studies such as this and this) of an unbelievable 5.8ºC of man-made global warming by 2100 do not come to pass when all we have had since 1950 has been at most 0.5ºC (a figure much exaggerated by Climategate retrospective adjustments from this very different raw original) or perhaps, no doubt inconceivably to blinkered climate catastrophists, none at all (explained below), cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not going to prevent the rise. The only thing that will stop it is another little ice age (see below). Change will be gradual as this study shows that the Greenland ice sheet was smaller than it is today 3,000 years ago when global temperatures were much higher, evidently without dire consequences. The climate was also more congenial 1,000 years ago when for nearly 500 years from about the 10th century Vikings lived and thrived in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. They abandoned their settlements during the subsequent 400 year Little Ice Age which was so cold that Londoners could hold ice fairs on the frozen River Thames. The last ice fair was held in 1814. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for at least the last 40 years and Arctic sea ice is recovering from its 2007 low. Climate alarmists like to discuss Arctic sea ice trends from the start of satellite measurements in 1979 which coincidentally and conveniently for them was a modern high for the ice due to the global cooling which occurred between the 1940s and 1970s (made to look less severe by Climategate retrospective adjustments, confirmed by the data in this 1975 scientific archive). To put things into perspective, this graph shows the huge expansion of Arctic sea ice during the Little Ice Age and also shows that in the warmer 1930s and 40s when temperatures in Iceland were similar to now there was still more sea ice than during most of the Medieval Warm Period. To allay the worries stoked by climate alarmist propaganda, melting sea ice has no impact on sea level rise (like ice cubes melting in a glass). And climate propaganda Greenland ice sheet scare stories are easily rebutted, e.g. here and here.

Returning to Macron’s main theme, why should we need to “battle” against a politically contrived problem which remains unconvincing, unproven and as yet indiscernible? This is an appropriate time to look back on the origins of the politicised man-made global warming scare as described in two new books, the first by science historian Bernie Lewin and the other by climate analyst Bob Tisdale. They recall how at the time of the first UN IPCC meeting in 1991 the scientists were adamant that they could find no human influence on global climate. This was very frustrating for the politicians who were already itching to start regulating the global consumption of fossil fuels for reasons which remain unclear to this day (they never talk about sustainability, just climate change). The second UN IPCC meeting in 1995 resulted in exactly the same conclusion at its first draft stage. However scientific arms were twisted behind the scenes at the encouragement of the US Department of State, probably at the behest of Bill Clinton and his climate fanatical VP Al Gore (see Margaret Thatcher below), and a young American lead author was prevailed upon to bend to the will of the politicians and change his scientific stance. The controversy centred around a dubious graph which when plotted with 8‑year old data showed an alleged “human fingerprint”. The problem was that the tell‑tale pattern disappeared when the latest data was used but the lead author nevertheless flagrantly declared a “discernible human influence on global climate”. The UN IPCC politicians used this flaky scientific evidence obtained under duress and disputed by the other scientists to kick-start their politics-driven, selectively biased man-made global warming scare. The scientists have been in the pockets of the manipulative politicians ever since as demonstrated by the shocking climate science skulduggery and complicity to deceive which came to light through the Climategate emails leaked in 2009 from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, a key hub of UN IPCC climate science. All of that blatant chicanery was disgracefully “greenwashed” by establishment inquiries.

Twenty-three years later, where is the iconic poster child image of this supposedly discernible human influence? The theory of CO2 greenhouse gas warming dictates that it should create a signature tropospheric “hot‑spot” but this has never been found: if it had been we would know all about it. For years the desperate UN IPCC used the unconvincing hockey stick graph as an icon until it was finally proved to be a fraud, no thanks to the climate scientists who refused to make public their flawed data. Climate alarmists have often used a supposedly distressed polar bear as a proxy icon for man-made global warming but this has backfired on them as the polar bear community is thriving. The 20‑year standstill in global temperatures since 1998 despite steadily rising atmospheric CO2 means that, discounting recent short-term natural fluctuations (now cooling), there has not even been a rising global temperature trend since last century. It also means that every temperature projection made to date by the UN IPCC’s climate models has been consistently wrong.

What’s more, the trusted and relevant UAH satellite temperature chart of that long ago brief warming spell of the 1980s and 90s, incidentally much shorter than the 30 year period climate scientists say is needed before declaring a climate trend which in this case they disgracefully chose to curtail because the politicians couldn’t wait to start their man-made global warming scare, the only brief period of sustained global warming in the last 70 years – and climate alarmist politicians who have any concern for their hard-pressed constituents should take cognisance of this hysteria-calming, easily displayed fact – shows no trace of the predicted CO2 global warming at a slow but steady rate of increase of about 0.2ºC per decade, just short-term random fluctuations which could only have been due to natural causes, most notably the huge double jump of the 1998 El Nino/La Nina/El Nino.

A compelling alternative explanation for the global warming of the 1980s and 90s is that, for whatever reasons such as increased solar magnetic intensity and reduced tropical cloud cover, a series of sunlight-fuelled naturally-warming El Ninos predominated over the subsequent cooling La Ninas. If so, that would mean there has been no man-made CO2 global warming in the last 70 years and therefore that there has never been any man‑made global warming as atmospheric CO2 levels before 1950 were too low (as even the UN IPCC concedes), and therefore that the only global warming we have enjoyed has been the approximate 0.8ºC of natural global warming since 1850 which mercifully lifted us out of the Little Ice Age, the worst cold period of our Holocene interglacial which also suffered far worse extremes – storms, floods, cold and famines, described here and here – than we have experienced in recent times, which according to Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen would have been due to (fifth bullet) the then increased temperature differential with the tropics. Yet my dangerously deluded MP “dares to dream” (25 minutes in) that we might “slow down, stop and even reverse” what he believes without basis is dangerous man-made global warming, as if sufficient self‑flagellation could conceivably make such a reversal possible, were that the case. His thinking mirrors the brainwashed Cambridge University undergraduates who recently debated “This House would rather cool the planet than warm the economy”. In contrast, Professor Lindzen thinks that the CO2 greenhouse effect increase in global temperatures will be of the order of 0.3ºC by around the end of the century which he says is nothing to worry about as it will be indiscernible in among the natural fluctuations of the climate (see Lord Lawson below on adaption). Looking even further ahead, there is a logarithmic (exponential) drop-off in the CO2 warming effect as its concentration rises.

Needless to say the UN IPCC climate establishment ignores this real world El Nino evidence because it invalidates their politically concocted, unjustified assumptions-driven, climate model-dependent, fast unravelling man-made CO2 global warming theory. They fail to explain how man-made CO2 emissions could allegedly cause man-made global warming in the 1980s and 90s but none at all over the 20 years since then and they give no credible explanation for the global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s when man-made CO2 emissions were increasing exponentially. They also ignore the natural climate variability of decadal and millennial time scales which led to the global warming of the early 20th century and major millennial global warmings such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and our current global warming which, for the historical warmings at least, happened without the influence of man-made CO2 and which have ominously reached progressively lower peaks, and major global coolings such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age. The inability of their climate models to hindcast the not long ago natural global warming of the early 20th century is yet another reason to have no faith in the UN IPCC’s CO2-biased one-trick pony climate science. Some of their lead scientists recently put out a pre-emptive excuse for what they think could be no global warming over the next 10 years! This means that their man-made global warming theory is close to being falsified by natural climate trends, if the 20-year standstill continues or even turns to cooling coupled with the premature declaration of an alleged man-made global warming trend over a period of just 20 years in the 1980s and 90s. Meanwhile, the same climate establishment continues its flagrant retrospective adjustments of global temperature records to make global warming look worse than it is! Why should any thinking person believe a word these propagandists say? You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand all the deceptions that are going on. Politicians should reflect on the famous words of Emeritus Professor of Physics Hal Lewis:

“The global warming scam … is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist”.

In the absence of “global warming”, all we get nowadays from politicians is uninformed hysteria about supposed “man-made climate change” effects such as  hurricanes  and  wildfires which can all be discounted as they are easily rebutted factually and are contingent on indiscernible sustained man-made global warming – which in any case should in theory reduce extreme weather events, i.e. the reverse of the well-documented severe conditions of the Little Ice Age and even the unsettled, crop yield averse conditions of the global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s – along with other unsubstantiated, mostly unscientific assertions such as the desperate claim made by then climate change minister Ed Davey, referring to the “pause” in global temperatures, that “the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the oceans”. The complete surprise of the 20‑year “pause” in global warming shows clearly that the unvalidated climate models on which the climate change scare is so reliant are seriously flawed. They run far too “hot”, i.e. their projections are grossly exaggerated, as shown by this simple graph of climate model projections versus actual temperatures. These exaggerated projections result mainly from the modelling of hypothetical, unverified positive feedbacks which are disputed by many independent scientists. Common sense dictates that such unnatural feedbacks are impossible because if such an aberration of nature actually existed, it would have turned the Earth into a hot, waterless planet like Venus in the distant past when CO2 levels were often much higher than now, which obviously did not happen. The entire establishment turns a political blind eye to the hopeless performance of these climate models which can only be described as GiGo “Garbage in, Garbage out” while they shamelessly continue to quote their unreal off-the-scale projections to try to scare the general public. Yet anyone who questions the establishment climate orthodoxy gets dismissed as a “climate change denier” for the heresy of suggesting that the poorly justified climate change risks and fears stoked up by the establishment seem somewhat exaggerated or that their ruinously inappropriate methods of supposedly “tackling climate change” are leading us into a hopeless energy supply cul‑de‑sac when all the empirical evidence indicates that man-made CO2 emissions have as yet no discernible impact on global temperatures.

The energy supply cul-de-sac refers to attempting to decarbonise using expensive, intermittent, low energy density, environmentally damaging renewables which cannot operate without the support of fossil fuel supplies for essential balancing and grid stability control; which have to be expensively duplicated by conventional plant to take over when there is not enough wind/sun; which as more are deployed degrade the efficiency and stability of the power grid and reduce the commercial viability of essential conventional plant which are forced to remain idle for longer; which can only be deployed to a limited scale due to basic engineering constraints; and which achieve nothing like the system-wide CO2 emissions savings claimed of them, which explains why the establishment has never dared to quantify their net life-cycle CO2 savings at the high deployment levels they want to achieve. In fact, global investment in these expensive, ineffectual renewable energy technologies has stalled since about 2011. Unfortunately most of our politicians and the wider climate establishment seem not to have taken this on board.

It is no good politician falling back on the faked “97% consensus” on climate change, explained in my main paper. Incidentally one of the main players in that fraud writes regularly in the Guardian under a 97% consensus mantra masthead, which tells you all you need to know about the Guardian’s shameless, desperate climate change propaganda. Nor should they try to fall back on the precautionary principle when the cost of the “insurance” is so much worse than the as yet indiscernible problem, especially given that unilateral action on our part is futile as under the Paris Agreement the exempt developing countries, including sub-continent sized China and India, are not going to stop increasing their fossil fuel consumption. For the sake of their hard‑pressed, energy poor constituents, politicians need to smell the coffee and set up an urgent review of their untenable, doctrinaire climate and energy policies – or are they not bothered that the climate models used by the UP IPCC’s politicised climate scientists are so blatantly flawed? Better still, given that (i) despite all the sacrifices made so far we have barely scratched the surface of implementing the Climate Change Act, mainly by picking the low hanging fruit, and (ii) with Lord Deben fretting that we will fall short on our next emissions targets unless even more draconian, self-flagellating measures are taken, and (iii) as one of the explicit aims of the Act was to demonstrate strong UK leadership internationally in order to encourage other countries to follow our lead but this has patently failed as exemplified by the “fantasy” Paris Agreement, they could use some common sense and simply repeal the ruinous Climate Change Act without further ado.

After all, no other country in the world has imposed such an onerous legally binding burden on itself, especially a policy dreamt up by technically unqualified ideology‑driven socialists, shown by their made-up concept of “climate justice“ which in practice is highly regressive, not that they care about that just so long as they can feel self-righteous about their (muddled) virtue-signalling policies, never mind “the many not the few”, aided and abetted by the “economy cratering” Lib Dems who blithely voted to increase the original 60% decarbonisation target to 80% (my ex MP Danny Alexander boasted to me about it). It was understandable that the Climate Change Act had to be retained during the Lib Dem coalition but why continue with it now when the passage of 10 years has shown it to be unworkable? Germany’s much vaunted, hugely expensive “energy transition” is turning into an “embarrassing fiasco” and they have dropped their EU 2020 climate targets. The EU’s energy policies are “worse than stupid” yet we could be lumbered with their autocratic climate directives for years to come with fines for missing their mandatory targets unless we make a clean Brexit. Politicians need to rejoin the uncompromising world of science and engineering reality, unpick their comfort blanket of misguided climate change certainties and deconstruct the complex web of fiction they have built up around alleged but indiscernible man-made global warming. It would be great if we could ban public policy use of the un‑prefixed weasel phrase “climate change”. Lord Lawson famously said “Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.” As he concludes in his book An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, the only sensible course of action on climate change, as with the melting of glacier ice, is to adapt as and when necessary.

Our politicians could show real international leadership by withdrawing from the unworkable Paris Agreement on the grounds that it has been a political fix from the start, nothing to do with science and based on climate models which are clearly not fit for purpose as this expert testimony to the US House of Representatives recently spelled out. As it currently stands the Paris Agreement is an exercise in futility, as illustrated by this dramatic graph from a well-known climate policy expert, but there is no prospect of it being re‑negotiated. The unaccountable, untrustworthy UN which cobbled together this intelligence-insulting “farce” of an international agreement does not deserve our support. We should give priority to looking after our own interests. The Americans rejected Kyoto, which achieved nothing, and now Paris yet paradoxically they were the only major country to meet the Kyoto standard of emissions reductions.

One politician who would almost certainly have stood up against the UN IPCC’s climate change chicanery is Margaret Thatcher, our only scientifically literate prime minister (she had a degree in chemistry and worked as a research chemist for several years before becoming a barrister). She clearly had the measure of the climate propagandists when she wrote in her 2002 book Statecraft:

“The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of advantages for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra‑national socialism.

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore … who warns: ‘Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.’

Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: ‘There is no greater national duty than the defence of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.’ Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes.”

With real world global climate indicators such as sea surface temperatures falling since about 2016 and the progression of natural solar and oceanic cycles suggesting that the world could experience global cooling over coming decades, politicians should perhaps go back to worrying about the next little ice age and the severe storms, floods and bitter cold that could bring, or even the 1970s scare of the next ice age, illustrated by this scary image of our precarious interglacial. Bring on global warming! Fortunately past ice ages have taken thousands of years to form. The thought of such cooling is surely enough to convince even those irrationally wedded to windmills that trying to survive using energy sparse intermittent renewables like wind power is not a sensible idea.

Security of gas supply concerns

The security of UK gas supplies was exposed in December by multiple supply chain problems. Our already limited gas storage capability has already been reduced by the closure of the Rough gas storage facility in early 2017.

A recent study by geologists from the University of Edinburgh concluded that there are “only 10 years of North Sea oil and gas left”.

We are severely vulnerable and no amount of additional intermittent renewables or pie in the sky battery storage could conceivably be of any help. Yet the UK has so far achieved zero fracking of natural gas which, if well-managed and successful, could secure our gas supplies for hundreds of years. Fortunately the results of test drilling look very promising. Fracking has already transformed the USA into the world’s largest producer of oil and gas and its cheap energy costs have rejuvenated its industries and are opening up a huge competitive advantage over self-harming renewables-obsessed countries like us. For many UK politicians, especially those on the left, it is apparently not a problem to be dependent on gas imports from countries like Qatar and Russia (as well as countries like Norway and the USA) but to exploit the huge natural gas bounty beneath our own feet is beyond the pale. Fracking has been ruled out in Labour’s 2017 manifesto and is also opposed by the Lib Dems and the SNP, the latter against the advice of their scientific advisors. These eco-dogmatists are being irresponsibly reckless with our national energy supply as well as passing up a great opportunity for industrial regeneration.

Finally, I am reminded of the totally failed Met Office prediction of 18 years ago that “winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’“. During this freezing January our electricity supply was at times on a knife-edge. Gas sometimes supplied a danger zone 60% or more of our electricity with coal taking the fossil fuel total to over 70% and nuclear sometimes taking the total up to about 90% while wind and solar barely registered above zero. The government was lucky because (i) there were no major plant outages, (ii) the only immediate manifestation of the gas supply chain problems was a price spike and a couple of small suppliers forced out of business and (iii) the month was mostly very windy with the wind electricity supply only occasionally falling into the doldrums. During such cold weather gas is obviously indispensible for heating most of our homes. What will it take for our anti-fracking zealots to understand that gas is essential to our wellbeing – large numbers of pensioner deaths from hypothermia and rolling blackouts with the economy grinding to a halt? How do Labour think they are going to procure the gas for their (presumed) 2030 quadrupled gas-fired, CCS abated electricity supply? How do the Tories think they will keep the lights on in cold midwinter when there is no wind or sun after they have run down our gas-fired electricity supplies and closed down all our coal power stations and then the international interconnector supplies go AWOL? How do the insular SNP think we could cope without gas and nuclear power, especially when Scotland is already dependent on imported backup electricity from England to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow?

Yours faithfully,

Douglas S Brodie, BSc    

Nairn, February 2018

PS: For further information see my previous offerings:

The Disadvantages of Wind Power, January 2017

Open Letter to Mr Pete Wishart, MP, January 2016 [shows a snapshot graphic of 70% fossil fuel electricity supply with zero wind in cold midwinter]

Why the Climate Change Act should be Repealed, November 2015ave

 

Posted in Wind farms | 3 Comments

Wind Industry Lies About Falling Costs Backfire: MPs Demand End to Subsidies for Wind Power

Interesting dichotomy. If they are so brilliant they don’y need subsidies. If they need subsidy they are an uneconomical method of providing intermittent power. I would go one step further. If we need standing reserve for when the wind doesn’t blow than wind farmers should pay a heavy penalty when they fail to provide power. Never mind constraints payments which are a farce. If the wind is so strong that they need to constrain off generation wait half an hour and the turbines will get closed down anyway and you can make the weasels pay for failure to supply.

STOP THESE THINGS

The moral of the story of ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ isn’t don’t lie, it’s don’t tell the same lie twice.

Renewables rent-seekers continue to stick with the same grab bag of lies, myths and furphies, despite mountains of evidence revealing their marketing pitch is just so much polished propaganda.

South Australia (Australia’s so-called ‘wind power capital’) is held up by wind worshippers as the example of how to transition to a 100% renewable energy future.

When the wind blows for a few hours at a stretch (see above) the wind cult claims victory, and seizes the high moral ground. However, woe betide anybody with the temerity to point out that SA’s obsession with wind power has left it with the highest power prices in the world, retail power prices rocketing, year-on-year, at 20% and a tripling of power costs to business in just on two years. Oh, and heaven…

View original post 1,102 more words

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

I’ve got to take my problem to the United Nations

Perverseness pays off

STOP THESE THINGS

When a bad bout of the Summertime Blues struck Trex’s Marc Bolan a while back, he told us he had no choice but to take his problem to the United Nations. Here’s a flashback for Glam Rock tragics:

****

****

Facing their own version of the same malady – this time the threat of giant fans destroying an otherwise idyllic life in the Scottish Highlands, near Loch Awe – Pat Swords and Christine Metcalfe weren’t about to let the Summertime Blues get them down, so – just like Marc Bolan and Eddie Cochran before him – they took their problem to the United Nations.

United Nation Headquarter New York Maybe this joint really is about social justice for the World’s citizens?

This plucky pair – Christine a red-blooded, Scot and Pat of the “fightin’ Irish” – may have just pulled the wind industry to a screaming halt in the UK and Ireland and – what’s…

View original post 888 more words

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

I think you may enjoy this

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

The Scottish Wind-Power Racket

10 August 2017

The Scottish wind-power racket

By John Constable and Matt Ridley

Imagine a sausage factory – the luckiest, most profitable sausage factory in the world. Its machines crank out their sausages, and lorries carry them to supermarkets. So far, so normal.

But this particular factory makes as many sausages as the management and staff choose. If they feel like taking the day off, the lorries and shelves stay empty. If they want to go a bit wild, they sometimes make so many sausages that there aren’t enough lorries to take them away. Or they carry on cranking out sausages even if the shelves are already full.

And here’s the really amazing thing: even when the lorries can’t cope or there is no demand for sausages, the factory gets paid. Indeed, they get paid more for not sending the sausages to the shops than for sending them. This is such great business that the factory is actually building an extension, so it can threaten to make even more unwanted sausages.

Does all that sound completely mad? Of course it does. But it’s what happens in the British electricity industry – where the blackmailing, money-printing sausage factory is a wind farm in Scotland.

There are currently about 750 wind farms north of the border, with roughly 3,000 wind turbines. Their total generating capacity amounts to 5,700 MW. The actual amount produced varies according to the weather. But at its maximum, that wind capacity is more than the 5.5 GW peakdemand on the Scottish grid.

What this means, of course, is that the output from Scottish wind turbines is often more than the Scottish system can absorb. That requires the surplus energy to be exported to England and Wales. But that isn’t as easy as it sounds.

The wind farms are distributed across Scotland, sometimes in very remote regions, so there is a real problem in getting their energy down to the English border – let alone getting it across. For some years now, Scotland’s total export capacity has been only 3.5 GW, well under the peak output of the wind farm fleet.

So, reinforcements and new links are being introduced. These range from the hugely controversial, and to many environmentally unacceptable, £820 million Beauly-Denny upgrade, to the massive Western Link, a subsea connector from Hunterston to Deeside that is set to come online this year at a cost of more than £1 billion – and will entail a standing charge on energy bills across Britain of about £100 million a year for 35 years.

Yet in spite of the cost, these upgrades cannot completely address the problem: there is still more wind power in Scotland than can be reasonably and affordably absorbed into the system, or exported to its neighbours, partly because the wind fleet keeps growing.

Why has so much been built? Partly, it is because of income-support subsidies. This top-up of nearly 100 per cent over the wholesale price – funded, of course, from consumer bills – makes wind farms very attractive, at least until they wear out (by which time developers hope to have sold them on to naive pension funds and investment trusts).

There is also the political situation. In England and Wales, onshore wind is effectively dead, due primarily to the strong local resistance the turbines tend to attract, to which government eventually responded.

In Scotland, the story is different. The country is intensely urbanised, with most voters located in the cities. Rural objectors were simply too few in number to have much influence, no matter how strong their environmental or economic arguments.

Subsidies to onshore wind in the UK now cost a little under £600 million a year, with Scottish wind taking about half, yet the Scottish government continues to ignore the protests and consent to new wind farms as if they cost almost nothing at all.

Which as far as Holyrood is concerned, is in fact true. Part of the attraction for Scottish politicians is that the subsidies that pay for Scottish wind farms come from consumers all over Great Britain.Scottish consumption is about 10 per cent of the British total – so when the Scottish government grants planning permission to the wind industry, it is simply writing a cheque drawn overwhelmingly on English and Welsh accounts. Taxation without representation, in fact.

But a careless government and a lucrative subsidy system doesn’t explain the full flourishing of Scotland’s wind industry. Bizarre as it may seem, the fact that the Scottish grid cannot physically absorb all this wind power is also an attraction – because subsidised wind farms can actually earn more per unit generated when that unit is thrown away than when it is sold to consumers. In other words, they really do get paid more for not making sausages than they do when selling normally.

The explanation is simple. A wind farm receives roughly half of its income from the wholesale price and half from subsidy, the infamous Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC). When the grid is either at or close to capacity, National Grid stops the wind farm from generating, in order to prevent damage to the overhead wires and, at worst, a major system disruption.

When this happens, the wind farm will keep its wholesale income – which is fair enough, since it was contracted in to the system. But it loses its ROCs, because those are only issued for electricity actually sold to consumers.

What happens then, however, is that the wind farm will ask for compensation for the lost ROCs.  The euphemism for “being paid for not producing sausages” is “constraint payment”. And often – and this is the crucial point – they will ask for more compensation than they are losing in income.

When one of us, John Constable, first exposed this problem back in 2011, the average compensation being paid was nearly four times the lost income. One wind farm, Crystal Rig, was asking for (and receiving) £991/MWh in compensation when it was losing about £50/MWh.

Naming and shaming worked, and prices fell. But they are still well above the income lost, with onshore wind farms regularly asking for between £60 and £90/MWh in compensation when they are only losing about £45/MWh.

The result is that wind farms in Scotland have a higher average income per unit of power generated, because local demand is low and the grid system is hopelessly congested – leaving National Grid no option but to buy them off at any price.

For National Grid, this is just a pass-through cost, so they don’t care much about it – they simply increase the amount they’re charging consumers. But for consumers, it’s a truly terrible deal. Since 2010, we’ve paid £328m to wind farms not to generate – mostly to onshore Scottish wind farms, though England’s offshore farms have also started to get into the act. Last year, the total was £82m. This year, it’s already reached £50m.

The result is that there is a perverse incentive to locate wind farms in Scotland, even though they aren’t welcome and the grid can’t take their output. In fact, some wind farms that are already being “constrained off” on a regular basis are considering major extensions to their capacity.

Take Fallago Rig in the Borders. This 48-turbine wind farm, with a capacity of 144 MW, was built in the teeth of fierce local resistance in 2013. Since then, it has received £21,713,858 in payments to stop generating, at an average price of £82/MWh – roughly double the lost income. That lost generation, about 264,954 MWh, is equivalent to 16 per cent of its output during that period.

In spite of this, its owners EdF, the economic wizards behind Hinkley Point C, are proposing to add a further 12 turbines, each over 126.5m in height. Is this about saving the planet? Or because the farm’s owners know they are on to a very good thing and are determined to make out like bandits?

Yet remarkably, this isn’t the end of the counter-economic insanity. When a Scottish wind farm is stopped from generating because of a bottleneck in the system, it throws the whole British market out of balance: supply no longer matches demand. A generator that was contracted-in to the market has been told to stop. That means that the market on the other side of the bottleneck is now short. National Grid, which is responsible for fixing these problems, has to buy last-minute supplies to make up for it. And that is very expensive indeed.

It’s quite difficult to determine which payments to these emergency generators – who are said to be “constrained on” to the system – are caused by Scotland’s capacity and export problems, and which by power station failures or errors in demand forecasts (among other factors). But either way, it’s big money.

And in a supreme irony, it is more than likely that the same large companies getting constraint payments on one side of the bottleneck (because the Scottish grid can’t cope) also get paid to start up their gas turbines in England to make up for the shortfall. Laugh? It’s enough to make a grown bill-payer cry.

The remedies are obvious. First, existing wind farms should not be allowed to demand compensation in excess of income lost. Second, we should carefully weigh up the costs and benefits of building new grid and reinforcing existing lines. It may well be much cheaper to shut wind farms down and compensate their owners, at the correct rate of course, rather than build another subsea interconnector on the east coast – or reinforce the landlines over the border to the main centres of load.

Third, and most importantly, the Government in Westminster should put its foot down, in the interests of us all, and stop Holyrood consenting new wind farms and extensions in Scotland. Or at least ensure that if MSPs want to play fast and loose with consumer bills, those should be Scottish bills. That might focus minds.

Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation. Matt Ridley is a journalist and author

Posted in Wind farms | 2 Comments

Cnoc an Neas

Since Paul Wheelhouse took over the remit for wind farms and even with subsidies cut, a sense of foreboding has over shadowed every wind farm objection as the Scottish Ministers, Mr. Wheelhouse and Mr. Brown have effectively rubber stamped most appeals. However for Force 9 Energy and Electricite de France it will certainly not be a champagne celebration as the Reporter has dismissed the appeal and refused the wind farm application. The full seventeen page report is pretty consistent in supporting the objectors and The Highland Council. Let us hope for consistency as the neighbouring Druim Ba wind farm application is shortly to be decided.

 

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment

Zero Gain

zero gain

Image | Posted on by | 1 Comment

How to really annoy your neighbours. Buy an electric car!

 

euro sheep

Plugging in six electric cars may cause local power cuts

Emily Gosden, Energy Editor
April 20 2017, 12:01am,
The Times

More than 11,000 public charging points have been installed for 100,000 electric cars on the roads today

Electric cars could cause local power shortages if just six vehicles are plugged in to charge on the same street, a leading think tank has warned.

Britain’s energy networks are unprepared for the growing numbers of electric cars and solar panels and ministers must intervene to prevent a “disaster” of “rising bills, blackout risk and angry consumers”, the Green Alliance said.

Uncontrolled charging of electric vehicles could cause “brownouts” at evening peaks in half of the UK by 2023, where the voltage drops and some household appliances stop working. Even now “as few as six closely located vehicles charging together at peak time could lead to local brownouts”, the report warned.

By 2025, up to 700,000 people could be affected by blackouts unless ministers mandate the use of “smart” charging points that manage usage and prevent cars drawing more power than the grid is capable of providing, it said.

About 100,000 electric vehicles are on British roads and forecasts suggest this could rise to 4.6 million by 2025 as costs fall. There are more than 11,000 public charging points, but most drivers also install their own charging points at home.

Dustin Benton, the policy director of Green Alliance, said initial ownership of electric cars was likely to be clustered in wealthy areas, exacerbating the risk of localised shortages unless ministers acted to manage the way they were charged. The affluent Surrey town of Lightwater could suffer brownouts if a third of households charged electric cars at peak, for example, or if just 7 per cent of households did so in “clusters”.

Using “smart” car chargers could, however, turn electric vehicle batteries into a useful resource, providing power to the grid at peak times and charging at other times when power is plentiful.

Meanwhile, the continued installation of solar panels is threatening power grids with the opposite problem of too much power when demand is low, the Green Alliance warned. The cost of solar panels is falling so rapidly that the government will soon lose the ability to deter people from installing them by cutting subsidies.

A fifth of local networks are already so close to capacity that they will struggle to cope with new solar developments, leaving the authorities facing the “invidious choice” of either barring people from installing solar panels or undertaking costly network upgrades. A radical rethink could instead use batteries and smart household appliances to help tackle the problem, it said.

“Small-scale energy . . . has already led to blackouts and billion-pound losses for unprepared governments, and it won’t be any different for the UK,” the Green Alliance warned. However, “with the right policy, electric vehicles and solar could help keep the lights on and cut consumer bills”.

A government spokesman said: “Keeping the lights on is non-negotiable. The way we use energy is changing and government is already upgrading our infrastructure and investigating what more can be done to deliver a smarter, more flexible energy system.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/…/plugging-in-six-electric-cars-…

Posted in Wind farms | Leave a comment

Stranded Assets

STRANDED ASSETS (fron Renewable News)
Scotland has nearly 2GW of consented commercial-scale onshore wind projects without an
immediate route to market.The portfolio includes developments awaiting policy on
support for islands wind, those with long-term grid or aviation constraints, and otherwise shovel-ready schemes simply awaiting clarity on the future shape of the UK wind market.
Developers predicted a number of long-in-the-tooth schemes designed to succeed under the Renewables Obligation will simply not progress. “The lower wind speed sites as a
general rule appear likely to fall by the wayside,” said one source. “Some of the small fry are also not really worth chasing.” Some consented ‘old school’ projects do have a future in the postsubsidy era but will require tweaks to current design. “I think you will see a lot of the previous generation of projects going back into planning in search of taller tips or bigger rotors, and perhaps even enhanced site design,” said the source. Renegotiation of lease deals with landowners may also be necessary to reflect the lower margins required
under the new system. A pool of potential buyers, both stablished and newcomers, is
nevertheless active in the Scottish market and eyeing the potential upside of the stranded portfolio. “There are bargains to be had but there is an obvious element of risk,” said another market source. “It could end up being a very long-term game in some instances.”

More recently approved projects

Project, location MW Developer
Aikengall 3, Lothian/Borders 75.5 CWP
Aultmore, Moray 26 Vattenfall
Beinn an Tuirc, Arygll 36 SPR
Camilty, West Lothian 20.4 PfR
Cloich, Borders 54 PfR
Corlic Hill, Inverclyde 24 Velocita
Craigton, Stirling 21 EDF
Creag Riabhach, Highland 72.6 Shanks/Gray
Crookedstane, Lanark 9.2 Velocita
Crossdykes, D&G 48 Muirhall
Dalquhandy, Lanark 45 Hargreaves
Deuchries, Aberdeenshire 6.9 Force 9
Druim Leathann, Lewis 42 Velocita
Gass, D&G 20 Willowind
Glen Kyllachy, Highland 50 Innogy
Glenmuckloch, D&G 25 Buccleuch/2020
Glen Ullinish, Highland 42 Kilmac
Govals, Angus 4.8 Green Cat
Halsary, Highlands 34 SPR
Kellas, Moray 16 REV
Kenly, Fife 12.3 St Andrews
Kennoxhead, Lanark 64.6 Brookfield
Kirk Hill, Ayrshire 24 ESB
Knockman Hill, D&G 5 Ramsay
Knockshinnoch, Ayrshire 4 REG
Kype Muir 2, Lanark 51 Banks
Larbrax, D&G 20 Brookfield
Lion Hill, Lanark 9.2 Velocita
Meikle Hill, Moray 13.8 Brookfield
Millennium 3, Highland 35 Falck
Mochrum Fell, D&G 24 Falck
Muaitheabhal, Lewis 160 EDF/Amec
Penbreck, Lanark 18 Brookfield
Pogbie 2, East Lothian 4.8 Trusted
Poniel, Lanark 9 Hargreaves
Sanquhar Six, D&G 19.8 CWP
Sorbie, Ayrshire 7.05 Velocita
Stornoway, Lewis 180 EDF/Amec
Stranoch, D&G 72 EDF
Tangy 3, Argyll 34.5 SSE
Twentyshilling, D&G 27 Element
Viking, Shetland 412 SSE/Viking
West Benhar, Lanark 27.2 PfR
Windy Edge, Borders 27

Posted in Wind farms | 1 Comment