In light of the recent announcement by Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan that the chances of avoiding power cuts looks very slim in the UK, Dr. John Brignell, proprietor of the Number Watch Blog, writes in with this note about a prediction he made ten years ago:
=========================================
A doleful anniversary
Ten years ago this month Number Watch carried an addendum entitled (in red) Power mad!
It was a warning of the disaster that the then Government was making inevitable with its Energy White Paper, including the estimate of ten to twenty years for it to take effect. It also laid out the simple, immutable principles of reliable energy supply. Unbelievably, we still have a government that is prevaricating on the matter, under domination by an EU that is fundamentally of the water melon tendency.
Now, it starts!
This month’s pusillanimous announcement by the bureaucrat in charge of energy, reported with characteristic wittering by the BBC, heralds a new age of energy poverty, with dire consequences, including deaths.
We are standing on the doorstep of the future.
20/02/13
==============================================================
The entry from Feb 2003 was:
==============================================================
Power mad!
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones.
Julius Caesar
It is fortunate that in democracies bad government is usually a transient phenomenon, but there are some areas in which bad government afflicts succeeding generations. One such area is long-term borrowing. The post-war Labour government, instead of knuckling down to the task of ensuring that the nation could earn its living, chose to borrow money from the USA on usurious terms that have blighted the lives of Britons ever since. The present Government is borrowing on a grand scale (including hire purchase disguised as the Private Finance Initiative) and like its post-war predecessor is diverting the funds into an overweening bureaucracy. Another important area is energy. Decisions on energy policy come into effect ten or twenty years after they are made. The way to cripple a modern state is to cut off its energy supply, as various oil crises have demonstrated.
The basics of a sound energy policy are quite simple:
1. Energy should be obtained from a variety of sources, lest one should fail.
2. There should be a reliable and continuous source to service the base load.
3. There should be further instantly available sources to accommodate demand surges.
4. Unpredictable and intermittent sources should be avoided.
5. Policy should not be decided by trends, fashions or religious convictions.
The British Government’s White paper of this month fails in all these respects. It represents a craven obeisance to the Green desire for a return to the Stone Age. It is driven by the science fantasy of the global warming myth. It makes no decision on the vital investment needed in nuclear technology to guarantee the servicing of the base load in future. It ensures that the country will be beholden to other nations for the provision of this most vital resource, assuming that their goodwill continues uninterrupted. It diverts even more precious research funds into academic organisations that are little better than propaganda machines.
The arithmetic that damns so-called renewable energy is perfectly simple, yet the nation’s prosperity is being hocked to pay for entry into the Solar Fraud.
===============================================================
Lions led by donkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHkOG7adupI
You have not adequately [done] your homework; ‘back radiation’ consistently yields warmer overnight temperatures (in this part of the country) … of course, most of that is from water vapor …
.
Frankly, it is time to bring on the power cuts. Those of us fortunate enough to live in the countryside, have plenty of wood and stoves to burn it in. There’s plenty of grain and milk around the corner in our local farms, spuds galore and in the summer there is the harvest from the hedgerows our own vegetables and fruit trees.
But when the cities are cut off, there will be pandemonium, and then perhaps some of our politicians will wake up in the morning and see an army of pitchforks outside through the window. Then they will act, but it will be too late.
I have family in the USA, so I hope that we get it in England first, and just maybe, your leaders will see what happens to us and take action before it is too late.
Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/#ixzz2LU0F7S3m
Britain is sitting on over a thousand years of this incredible source.
Jeff (of Colorado) says:
February 20, 2013 at 10:19 am
===========
Just for the heck of it, thought I’d throw you this link:
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-43—Wrath-of-the-Khans-I/Mongols-Genghis-Chingis
Part 1 of a 5 part series.
Bedtime (audio) history for those that can’t get enough.
Heck, I’ve got Tonyb’s Plan B right in front of me.
Currently it’s called the Breakthrough Energy Movement though names can change. Good starter book is Breakthrough Power. Good starter video is the Race to Free Energy even tho it’s a few years old, and commentator Eugene Mallove was killed because he got too good. It’s why I haven’t been around WUWT etc these last few months.
I’d like people here to see Plan B clearly – and see why so little is heard – and why it matters – and would be unstoppable if people grasped what it really is about. The silencing and coverups here are worse than with Global Warming. Compared with what I’ve discovered, the AGW fraud seems like a sideline to keep people distracted. The most serious issues are where people are getting raided of everything, silenced, bumped off.
So please, familiarize yourselves. Be prepared for surprises both good and foul. Be prepared for serious paradigm shifts – both physics/engineering and spiritual/inner and Follow the $$. Pay close attention to the evidence, remembering that this area of energy development is bound to look doubtful a lot of the time because as soon as it has ever looked like gathering strong evidence, or presenting it well enough, vested interests have been squashing it down. For this reason alone, the first to “succeed” could well be the bluffers and showmen/conmen like Rossi. But there are a hundred more technologies that inventors of integrity have worked on – with little money – LENR is but a small minority. And there are some, like Mohorn, whose product is already a wide success although it depends on no known law of physics – but does not challenge the energy barons and is beneath the academic radar.
It matters. Eppur si muove.
Correct predictions aren’t very “sciencey” these days. They’re so *mainstream*!
Cold Englishman says:
February 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm
I have family in the USA, so I hope that we get it in England first, and just maybe, your leaders will see what happens to us and take action before it is too late.
HAHAHAHAHA!
I love your optimism!
I will keep pushing thorium nuclear power every chance I get on this blog. Take 5 minutes and watch the intro to this video and see if you are not hooked. What nuclear power could have been 50 years ago and hopefully will be someday.
Ric Werme says:
February 20, 2013 at 11:50 am
The first video starts with a slide that says:
Working in this field at this time can destroy your career.
Being interested may be damaging to your personal and professional life.
Sort of like being a climate skeptic in academia….
————————————————————————–
Except science actually worked when it came to Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion. There was a hypothesis/claim of energy production and excess neutrons. Other labs tried to replicate the results and when no one could the claims were debunked. CAGW on the other hand is unfalsifiable and therefore not real science.
From Jimbo’s posted link:
Fuel Poverty Action Protest Brings Whitehall Traffic To Standstill
“Renewable energy would be cheaper but they’re refusing to make that transition because their profits depend on gas.”
Renewable energy would be cheaper!? Not living in the real world….
Tsk Tsk says: February 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Ric Werme says:February 20, 2013 at 11:50 am
The first video starts with a slide that says:
Working in this field at this time can destroy your career.
Being interested may be damaging to your personal and professional life.
Sort of like being a climate skeptic in academia….
————————————————————————–
Except science actually worked when it came to Pons and Fleischmann cold fusion. There was a hypothesis/claim of energy production and excess neutrons. Other labs tried to replicate the results and when no one could the claims were debunked. CAGW on the other hand is unfalsifiable and therefore not real science.
——————————————————————
When the Pons/Fleischman claims hit the press, Pres Bush asked his science advisers to check the claims and report in two weeks. During the two weeks, the big name labs reported no corroboration, and it got reported as pseudo science bunk. Later, the claims were shown to be repeated and reported hundreds of times and it turns out the deuterium loading process itself takes longer than 2 weeks. Here’s a good presentation of the science done by one such corroborating lab in the US Navy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VymhJCcNBBc
It’s an hour long and dry at times, but there’s no doubt that cold fusion is real.
Here’s part one of an 8-part summary of the last 20 years in the real science of cold fusion research. Dr McKubre of Stanford Research International has excellent credibility.
Of course, the real question is whether there is enough net energy output to be recoverable in useful quantities. Answering that question is something the DOE is completely neglecting.
Mike M says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Tax policy could turn the entire issue into a non-problem. Instead of taxing energy companies on their profit – tax them on the amount of energy they provide. The more energy they provide, (the more we use) – the more tax revenue the government makes. That puts the government on our side to maintain policies to keep energy cheap and increase competition among providers to reduce cost.
—————————————————————————-
Hmmm, interesting reversal of the laws of economics there, champ. The more they produce, irrespective of real costs or real profits, the more tax they pay? Now, there’s a way to kill an industry stone dead. You don’t even mention whether they have to sell it, just as long as they produce it.
There are already heavy taxes (indirect taxes like sales taxes) which correlate to the amount of energy products that are sold. They have turned energy into a milch-cow for government spending and are grossly inequitable, as poor people also need energy and spend much more of their income on it than rich people.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the UK. Power brownouts and blackouts, especially in winter, are remarkable in their capacity to send voters into a towering, unforgiving rage.
Brant Ra says…
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says…
Ric Werme says…
Tsk Tsk says…
Dan in California says…
…all about Cold Fusion / Pons & Fleischmann.
This is exactly the kind of place where persistent and thorough digging for evidence is needed, to settle the disputes – even though it is perfectly clear from Brant Ra that MIT are once again embracing Cold Fusion principles. We’ve seen a few articles here on Rossi – promising, promising, promising… and not quite appearing to deliver the (Cold Fusion / LENR) goods. Some people here simply think they’ve encountered that kind of tall story before. But the reality is not nearly as simple. When I went to the Breakthrough Energy Movement conference last November, this was one of the many things I learned about. There was one, yes one man (I forget his name but it should be reasonably easy to find) who seemed to have an agenda, namely to debunk Pons and Fleischmann at all costs. It appears that P&F were effectively forced to go public long before they intended to, because someone else looked set to beat them to it (it even seems that they too may have been part of an effort to debunk the whole thing).
The problem P&F had was that although their results could sometimes be duplicated, at other times, duplication simply didn’t seem to work – and it was not at all clear as to why. And on all those failure times was built the case for debunking both the failures and the successes. Debunking P&F was decided by vote, with the detractor-with-hidden-agenda leading the vote. I’ve seen it on video. Just like the alarmists. Yeeugh.
After P&F were ejected from the minion journals of orthodoxy, they seemed to disappear. But this is far from the whole truth. In fact, a whole underground movement of support built up, and “alternative” conferences were, I believe, held every year from then until now. Only last year did the whole notion of “cold fusion” become acceptable as a concept, with the implication that it can now be researched again in the universities and above all, be duplicated.
Rossi is only one of many – and Cold Fusion is only one of many kinds of little-known but proven alternative energy sources. He is clearly a showman and a pusher, with little to lose (like Columbus escaping Inquisition-infested Spain) in a field that has already shown itself to be dangerous to follow – risking career prospects, and worse. BEM think that, on the whole, he is most likely to be the one to first get a workable energy device on the market – not because his is the best, or the most proven, or even the most useful, but perhaps because he has the combination of characteristics that make it most likely he will get away with it and evade the crucifying hand of Big Energy vested interests neatly enough – not being too big a threat, yet also representing the way the tide HAS to turn.
I apologize for lack of specific details like names. My memory never served me well that way. So over the years I have, as per Scientific Method, checked again and again to see if I remembered correctly enough, and with a balanced enough picture of the whole situation. Nearly always my memory has proved to be utterly correct in essentials though hazy in details. I had the choice between no statement at all, and the above. I think half a loaf is better than no bread. I am sure others can supply the details.
Henry Galt says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Henry, you appear to be well wide of the mark.
You claim that it’s the Tories who want to lower the voting age: if you check out http://www.votesat16.org you’ll find that it’s predominately a Labour/Lib Dem/Trade Union inspired ‘movement’, albeit one with all of 3,269 (at the time of writing) supporters.
Then you appear to be suggesting that the Labour Party gave money to dead children that were “slaughtered” by Margaret Thatcher. I have to confess that this one is beyond me so it would be useful to get a translation.
The main point though is that, in your seemingly passionate defence of the Labour Party, you appear to have forgotten that the Climate Change Act was introduced into parliament by Labour and brought into law by your party leader, Ed Milliband.
Oh, by the way, I ain’t no Tory neither – I’ve not forgotten that the Climate Change Act was supported by them, nor have I forgotten that Cameron’s father-in-law is a recipient of large sums of subsidy for allowing wind turbines on his land and nor have I forgotten that it’s two Tories, John Gummer and Tim Yeo, who have stitched up the Committee on Climate Change and who are, in my opinion, corrupted by their involvement in climate change businesses.
Balance, dear boy, balance 😉
Oh so true.
A.D. Everard says:
February 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“My view is that politicians will back-pedal when they realize how angry people are. So let them know. If it takes a march on parliament, so be it. If it takes protests outside of those perfectly good stations about to be closed, then do it. Do it everywhere, do it over and over.”
Well said. A very good idea, but the march would have to be massive to have any effect. Does anyone in the UK have experience of organising such a march? I’m sure it would get huge support if it was properly planned and well publicised with the kind help of Mr Watts and other supportive sites.
Last Tuesday UK wind power output was a massive 29 Megawatts, 0.065% of total.
Spain’s wind installation dwarfs the UK’s, but on one day last September it was generating 100 MW.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
https://demanda.ree.es/eolicaEng.html
Although these are fairly extreme occurrences they do happen several times every year and can last for hours or even a day. In the UK these occurrences sometimes occur during winter high pressure conditions, precisely when the coldest temperatures occur.
I think there’s only one suitable description for all this: completely barking mad.
It’s not only mad, it’s completely immoral. As TonyB pointed out, the English climate has been steadily getting colder since 2000. The CET graph shows this:
1930 to 1990: pretty well flat with zero trend.
1990 to 2000: temps rose by about one degree C.
2000 to the present: temps fell by about 0.6 degree C, wiping out more than half of the previous rise. There is still a strong falling trend.
This corresponds quite well with our experience in England. Winters are now much colder with lots of snow. Even the summers are often quite chilly now. For the last few years I’ve been wearing a sweater quite often during the summer.
So, as our climate rapidly cools, and actual global warming is notable by its absence, we’re still being forced to pay for the global warming cult. Words almost fail me. All I feel is a numb sense of outrage and helplessness.
Having said that, I think democracy and the fundamental integrity of science will eventually reasssert themselves. But, at the age of 67, I may not live to see it.
I would have been a lifelong Conservative voter, but no longer. I will never vote for a party whose policies are designed to push up the price of energy. Cameron’s loss is UKIP’s gain!
Chris
Chris
It’s an unholy mess. Temperatures plummet whilst energy prices soar, preventing millions from keeping warm, always assuming there is enough power to go round after our insistence on building lots of highly inefficient and unreliable renewables . Trouble is that all three major political parties are fully on board with this madness.
Tonyb
davidgmills says: February 20, 2013 at 5:57 pm
I will keep pushing thorium nuclear power every chance I get on this blog. Take 5 minutes and watch the intro to this video and see if you are not hooked.
____________________________________
Nice thorium video, davidgmills. Nice video.
Who is this guy? Why is he not a government advisor, being hailed in a 5,000 seat auditorium, instead of enlightening ten people in a decaying basement??
G-d, our political classes are Dumb, with a capital ‘D’.
.
Excellent. Power outages just as we head into solar cycle 25. Too much to hope the AMO and NAO play nice?
Germany builds coal fired power stations to avert power shortages, fuel poverty and decreasing economic output, and we have a government intent on doing exactly the opposite. You couldn’t make it up, largely because no sensible thinking person wouldn’t want to. Fortunately we don’t need to so we can actually save energy, we’ve elected illogical morons to do it for us.