![wind-turbine[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wind-turbine1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The British renewables industry is horrified at the latest UK budget, which has slashed the green climate change levy, and provided a mild tax cut for faltering North Sea oil extraction businesses.
According to The Guardian;
George Osborne has infuriated green energy producers and campaigners with a £910m-a-year raid on the renewable energy sector by changing a climate change levy (CCL) at the same time as providing more fiscal help for North Sea oilfields.
RenewableUK, the lobby group, said the changes would cost green energy producers around £450m in the current financial year, and up to £1bn by 2020-2021.
The move hammered the share price of power generator Drax which is in the process of converting stations from burning coal to burning wood pellets. The company lost more than a quarter of its stock market value as it said the move would cost it £30m this year and £60m in 2016.
Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, described the budget as a “serious blow for the fight against climate change”, while Greenpeace said it showed the chancellor is out of step with the times.
The Telegraph, another UK newspaper, provides more detail on the “fiscal help for North Sea oil production”:
North Sea oil explorers and producers were handed little in the way of a boost by the Chancellor in the budget despite the industry suffering from falling prices.
Oil prices currently below $60 per barrel have hit the UK’s main petroleum producing basin hard but George Osborne had little to offer in the emergency budget beyond the incentives he introduced at the end of the last parliament.
In March Mr Osborne unveiled measures worth £1.3bn over five years aimed at boosting flagging North Sea oil production by 15pc by the end of the decade.
The effective tax rate on production from older oil and gas fields was reduced from 80pc to 75pc, while on newer fields it would be cut from 60pc to 50pc.
The UK joins a growing list of European nations which are significantly scaling back their green energy schemes, some of them retroactively.
Despite strident green rhetoric in the leadup to Paris, Greece, Spain, Germany, Italy, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, probably other European nations have all slashed state aid for renewables, some of them more than once.
Greens regularly try to talk up the alleged “risks” associated with investing in fossil fuel energy. In my opinion, owning an investment in an industry, where a quarter of your investment can be wiped out at the stroke of a politician’s pen, because your business model depends on the generosity of cash strapped governments, is far more precarious.
Back in the late 70s and early 80’s the last solar energy scam ended in about a week after the subsidies ended. As a monument to that great nonsense, my neighbor still has the hot water panels on her roof. I think they are now finally disconnected but she spend over 20 years paying to heat the water that flowed through them.
I suppose that in another 20 years we can do the scam all over again
What a Country
Oil is going to get even cheaper !
Chinese stock market is in the free fall, many will loose their jobs, many will get or feel poorer and cut down on the record growing consumption, many firms will collapse. China is the world’s second economy, the west can’t escape consequences if there is a ‘chinese meltdown’.
OMG “It is going to get far worse than we thought”.
The Chinese markets went up 150% over the last 18 months, it was due for a correction. The only damage is when the government tries to stop the correction, like the current one is doing. Can’t have that loss of face, can we?
I thought I heard someone sucking for air, now I know who & why!!
Gary Hladik
July 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Vukcevic (July 9, 2015 at 10:52 am) is confusing George Washington, whose cherry tree story is actually a myth, with Abraham Lincoln.
Didn’t admitting to his enraged father that he cut the cherry tree give birth to the ‘honest Abe’ saying ?
“….fool all the people….”
many links hereatribute it to Lincoln.
Lot of history is myth.
Not being an American, if I got it all wrong, I could be forgiven, I’ll leave it to the Americans to decide what they want to believe.
BTW, have GISS or NOAA any uncorrected data on the past presidents ?
Whoever came up with the idea that burning wood was carbon-neutral? When we cut down a tree, we have 3 guys with chain saws, one taking off the smaller branches (which we run through the wood-chipper), another cutting up the branches that don’t need splitting and the unlucky guy (me) who cuts up the trunk for the splitter. We then load the wood onto a trailer and drive it to the splitter. Then we split and stack and let it sit for a year. Then we haul it close to the house (tractor) and stack it up ready for the winter. Then we haul it into the house near the wood stoves. Then we burn it. A tractor (diesel), 3 chain saws (oil & gas mix), a splitter (gas) and three guys (piss & vinegar) are required to burn wood. How on Earth is that carbon neutral?
The green energy people seem to be circling Canada these days. I wonder if they smell money now that the NDP (leftmost party) are leading in the polls? On the business news network (BNN) we were told how solar is now cost competitive with fossil fuel and more jobs are created in the green energy sector than in Canada’s oil industry. Strangely, I feel like having moussaka tonight.
In Roman times rocky now almost bare south Dalmatian mountains were well forested, but the late Romans followed by Venetians cut down lot of forests for boat building. Torrential rains (some of the highest rainfalls in Europe) managed to wash most off the soil before new forests could establish itself, never to return back; the story I was told at school.
ergo: cutting down trees carelessly may not mean that nature will put it right and return land to the original state.
Because Steve from Rockwood, unlike you, I use things such as bow saws, mauls, wedges and wheelbarrows that don’t require fossil fuels for operation. The net result is that you can obtain the firewood without using fossil fuels.
Ah, you are fueled with food grown with the aid of fossil fuels.
========
All of those things required fossil fuels to be created, however. Unless you are saying that you also smelted the steel in your tools with solar energy? Perhaps you are using stone and you chipped them into useful saws and mobile wheelbarrows yourself? You’re deluded if you think your manual harvests are somehow green.
On top of that, you fail to see the big picture: What happens when everyone switches to wood, since its’ so “carbon neutral”? I’ll tell you: Clear cut forests for the “Efficient” living in cities. Roads that still must be maintained to reduce the energy to wheelbarrow (or even ox-cart) stacks of wood across the country side to where most of the people are. Since we no longer have fuels to refine steel that lasts for a significant while, we’ll have to use a large chunk of that wood to handle and temper iron and bronze. All of this is producing carbon, not only from us but our animals with breathing, which will no longer get scrubbed from the atmosphere because of the aforementioned clear cut forests. There is a reason that we have larger forests, today, than we did 150 years ago: We aren’t cutting the darn things down to heat our homes anymore.
And, really, “Carbon neutrality” is a ridiculous notion in a life-scape that’s fueled by carbon.
How are bow saws, mauls, wedges, and wheelbarrows produced and distributed? No, the only way you could obtain firewood without using fossil fuels somewhere in the process is to use the branches and limbs lying on the ground – and carrying them to your fire.
Absolute bollocks.
Kim, Arsten, Jtom & david smith….
..
Any BTU firewood provides me during the heating season is in fact carbon neutral. You can argue that the tools I use to obtain it are not, and I will agree with you on that point. However, each and cord I burn is that much deadwood that will not be rotting away, and that much less fossil fuels needed for heating. The forests on my property has been providing me with winter heat now for about 30 years, and by only using the deadwood, the forests are still intact, and flourishing. The rule of thumb is that an acre of forest will product a cord of dead wood annually. This has been the case, and in fact there is still plenty of deadwood that is rotting in my forests, because I cannot harvest all of it.
PS david smith, “Absolute bollocks”
…
So, tell me how the people that lived in Europe 1000 years ago did it?
Joel D Jackson: They didn’t. Steel has been around for quite awhile. Even if you were poor, you’d still get iron or cheaper metals that you would heat and temper with coal sources. Perhaps you are talking about 5,000 years ago?
And they weren’t “Carbon neutral” even then. Not only were their tools created with fossil fuels (like coal), they were still human 1,000 years ago, also. They also produced a lot more actual pollution, like particulates, methane, and other nasties reducing their life span. Much like those that live in Africa do, today. Perhaps you should go see how polluting and dirty subsistence living, even with deadwood-only harvesting, really is? Sitting on multiple acres of owned and preserved forest isn’t the same as actually having to live off of those woods turns out to actually be. You’ll end up cooking with dung when your nearby sources of dead wood, and then felled wood are exhausted.
You might also note that you can go gather the dead wood, but that is not sufficient for even basic economic activity — as you can see if you look at how much forest was felled in Europe.
There is both historical and contemporary evidence against wide spread use of wood as the primary fuel for a variety of reasons. It’s simply not practical unless you are only in it for yourself.
Arsten “Not only were their tools created with fossil fuels (like coal)”
…
Guess you never heard about a substance called “charcoal” great stuff for making steel many centuries ago.
..
” against wide spread use of wood as the primary fuel for a variety of reasons” …Sorry buddy, you are now constructing what is called a “straw man”……..please try to focus on the topic at hand….namely that firewood is carbon neutral.
Joel D. Jackson:
You say to Arsten
Guess you never heard about a substance called “charcoal” great stuff for making steel many centuries ago.
Guess you never heard about Charcoal Burners and how terrible their lives were.
Fossil fuels have released us from lives as poor and arduous as those of galley slaves and Charcoal Burners.
I will enlighten you as to why Charcoal Burners invented the seat with one-leg.
A Charcoal Burner obtained wood from the forest by collecting brush wood and/or by coppicing. He dragged the collected wood to a clearing and skillfully constructed it into a bonfire. Then he cut turves from the ground and coated the bonfire with them. Holes were cut through the turves so air could reach the fire and smoke could escape.
The Charcoal Burner then lit the bonfire. His livelihood – and hence his life – depended on the fire producing saleable charcoal: failure to produce charcoal failed to provide income so he would starve.
The intention was for all the volatiles to burn leaving the black carbonaceous charcoal. Too much fire and the charcoal burned away so the Charcoal Burner starved. Too little fire and combustion stopped so the Charcoal Burner needed to dismantle the bonfire and its turve coating, rebuild the assembly, and start again with lost time and effort so he would starve.
The fire must smoulder at the correct manner throughout ~72 hours if it were to provide charcoal. And that required adjusting the openings in the turve coating as required throughout the 72 hours. But monitoring the smouldering pile was slightly less interesting than watching paint dry. And that is why a Charcoal Burner would sit on seat with only one leg.
If a Charcoal Burner became too tired he would nod off his one-leg stool, hit the ground, and wake up.
And that is the origen of the phrase “to nod off”.
So, Joel D. Jackson, would you prefer our modern civilisation which depends on fossil fuels or a return to a society that requires the hardships of galley slaves and Charcoal Burners?
Richard
Sorry about the formatting error.
My post to Joel D. Jackson was intended to start
You say to Arsten
Guess you never heard about Charcoal Burners and how terrible their lives were.
I’m not a greenie tho I consider myself a stewart of God’s creation. I have over 8 acres of woods, mostly oak. It grows so fast that I must cut some to manage it properly. Even if I cut only dead trees I cannot burn fast enough to keep up. Somehow I appreciate the warmth from a fire enough that I use it even tho I can afford utility bills. Many contributors appear to be land owners or farmers. Greenies generally own little land and want to control
“…a £910m-a-year raid on the renewable energy sector…” Raid? Really? Reducing the amount of free handouts is not really a ‘raid’ is it?
We have to wait and see what the new secretary of state for energy and climate change Amber Rudd does in Paris. The last two, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, were part of the “yellow albatross” hung around premier Cameron’s neck, a bird that nearly became extinct at the last election and not because of AGW -smileyface-
.
The green scams do not work, do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions. All the pain for no gain. It is pathetic that the cult of CAGW are pushing scams that do not work. It is pathetic that the media has not gotten to the bottom of this sad scam.
The green scams fail without including the cost and energy input for battery systems. The costs and energy input for battery systems are never discussed as the calculation becomes ridiculous, absurd if battery systems are included.
The first fundamental error/scam in the ‘economic’ calculation is the cost comparison is not ‘green scam’ vs hydrocarbon, as 100% hydrocarbon backup is required in addition to the green scam. ‘Investing’ in green scams mean doubling the installed power equipment to power the grid, in addition to more power lines as power is forced to move from region to region.
The second fundamental issue which is not understood by most people are implications of the fact that wind speed varies independent of load requirements.
The power generated from a turbine varies as the cube of wind speed and can vary 30% in less than an hour. As a power system must always be balanced when the wind blows or the wind stops blowing other power sources must be shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and so on.
As the amount of wind power increases it is no longer possible to use high efficiency combined cycle power plants for base load. This means if a country mandates wind power at a certain breakpoint there will be a net increase rather than a decrease in CO2 emissions, as it is no longer possible to use high efficiency combined cycle power generation (20% more efficient than a single cycle gas turbine). The combined cycle power plants take 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off.
The last part of the green scam, scam is that the calculations do not include the cost and energy to replace the worn out wind turbines (wind turbines and supports have a life time of 12 to 15 years) and battery systems (battery systems have a life of around 7 years and degrade as they age.)
To reduce CO2 emissions below 20% (note the 20% ‘reduction’ in CO2 emissions ignores the energy input to construct the green scams and ignores the reduction in power system efficiency due to forced change to single cycle gas plants which can be turned on/off/on/off/on/off rather than combined cycle gas plants which are 20% more efficient but require 10 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off, i.e. the idiotic CO2 reduction calculation is a scam) with wind and solar requires battery systems.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
William Astley:
You rightly say
Yes, and there is another serious problem provided by the fact that the wind power varies as the cube of wind speed.
A turbine cannot spin too fast or the tips of its blades become supersonic and – when this happens – the induced stresses tear the blades from the turbine (i.e. blade shedding) and they are thrown from the turbine.
Hence, a wind turbine is feathered when the wind is too strong, and that is why a wind turbine only generates power when the wind is strong enough but not too strong.
Winds often gust so there has to be a safety margin for the wind speed when the blades feather: if there were no safety margin then a gust would destroy the turbine.
The fact that wind power varies as the cube of wind speed requires large safety margin with associated reduced time when the turbine generates power.
Richard
Dare we think that some governments are starting to smarten up and moving away from the scam.
Also the privitate sector is stepping back. Eneco, one of the largest producers and suppliers of natural gas, electricity and heat in the Netherlands, announced that is will scrap 400 million Euro investment in renewable energy.
Dutch article: http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4332/Groen/article/detail/4092433/2015/07/01/Eneco-schrapt-400-miljoen-investeringen-in-duurzame-energie.dhtml
The Dutch government has forced this company and other energy companies to split up into two companies: energy supply and network maintanace/management. Because of the split up, Eneco says it cannot afford the investments in renewable energy any longer.
Those Eco-homes are causing problems too
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155640/Crazy-eco-rules-turning-modern-homes-ovens-Experts-warn-drive-green-homes-poses-potentially-lethal-risk.html
Heck, individuals can contribute to a Greece bailout fund through Indiegogo, so why don’t these lobby groups get together and set up a similar crowd-funding operation to finance their renewables experiments? Problem solved! ;->
Sure, I’ll contribute to the Greek bailout as soon as the Greeks start to bail themselves out too. Oh wait, for 2000 years, they’ve not been too interested in paying their taxes.
I think George Osborne has the right idea . There is more that can be done to fight the senseless global warming alarmism
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO PREPARE FOR FUTURE CLIMATE [an alternative to climate warming alarmism)?
• STOP CRYING GLOBAL WARMING “WOLF” EVERY TIME THE WEATHER HAS THE SLIGHTEST HICUP (IE. STOP THE PHONEY ALARMISM )
• FIGHT POLLUTION AND NOT TO CONTROL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
• LEARN TO PREPARE AND ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. MOST CHANGE CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND IS NATURAL ANYWAY
• STOP SHUTTING DOWN PERFECTLY GOOD COAL PLANTS PREMATURELY. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS KIND OF WASTE.
• RECOGNIZE THAT POPULATION GROWTH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED INDEFINETELY OR THE SUPPORT SYSTEMS MAY FAIL FOR ALL
• RECOGNIZE THAT CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUATNT AND IS ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET
• RECOGNIZE THAT THE REAL POLLUTANTS ARE OTHER COMPONENTS OF EMISSIONS LIKE VOC, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDE ETC, ( those in our air quality index)
• STOP GIVING OUT FREE MONEY FOR GLOBAL WARMING INITATIVES WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABLITY FOR RESULTS
• DRASTICALLY REDUCE SUBSIDIES TO UNSUSTAINABLE ENERGIES
• HELP POOR COUNTRIES TO INSTALL LESS EXPENSIVE FOSSIL ENERGIES
• HELP THE POOR OF ANY NATION TO COPE WITH HIGH ENERGY COSTS
• HAVE BETTER AND PROPER SAFETY MEASURES TO TRANSPORT ALL ENERGY INCLUDING FOSSIL FUELS
• STOP PRODUCING EATHANOL AND FEED THE POOR INSTEAD WITH THE CORN
• STOP BUILDING OR EXPANDING NUCLEAR PLANTS IN POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS. DOUBLE THE CURRENT SAFETY MEASURES INCUDING SECURITY
• PUT AN ANNUAL PRICE AND TRACK ALL THE DOLLARS BEING SPENT TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE
• STOP CONTINUALLY MANIPULATING RAW CLIMATE DATA
• RECOGNIZE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS PRIODIC COOLING AS WELL AS WARMING
• MANY NORTHERN REGIONS NEED TO PREPARE FOR THE COMING 30 YEAR COOLER PHASE OF THE CLIMATE CYCLE
• RECOGNIZE THAT GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE DERIVED FIGURES WHICH MAY INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT REGIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY COOLING AT THE MOMENT( NORTH AMERICA)
• PRESENT ALL CLIMATE RISKS NOT JUST THE WARMING SIDE
Could not find comment I attempted to post. I am not a greenie although I consider myself a stewart of
god’s creation. I’m a wood burner who considers my CO2 footprint to be nuetral ie I’m contributing nothing to the greening of of our planet. I cut and burn wood because I have 8 acres of Oak and proper management requires that I cut dead and diseased trees. I’ve lived here about 30 years and can not keep up with my forest, ie I can’t burn wood faster than it grows. I’m now at my summer home in glacier country (Michigan) where with less land and colder winters I could burn faster than wood grows. Does anyone know a Greenie who actually farms or manages land? Many contributers actually are responsible farmers. How many Greenies are?
Max
Am I the only one that finds it amusing that the reduction in gifts to the renewable energy is being shown as equal to a 7%/16% reduction in taxes for oil companies? The greens are still getting money from the government and the oil companies are still giving money to the government.
It shows how detached from reality so many people are that a reduction of a subsidy can be described as a “raid”. They already think of our money as theirs even though we haven’t given it to them yet.
For an excellent analysis of world wide energy subsidies and costs
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal and nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence. Alarmists who propose to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and go entirely to renewables are misleading the public about what is practical or feasible even with batteries. If you cannot produce the power because of lack of wind or sun, batteries are of little help. Fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear backup is absolutely necessary with renewable energies . The G7 leaders who recently came back from a summit in Europe proclaiming that the world should aim for fossil fuel free future by the end of this century, their ambitious goal appears to be just political nonsense . Even as they stated this proclamation , Germany, a senior G7 member is replacing all their 17 nuclear power plants with 23 new coal fired plants . So who is kidding the world about the need for more renewables and the feasibility of eliminating of fossil fuel. .
Eric would know but the planned Glen Innes wind farm got its go ahead. Well we’ve had snow the last few days in Armidale, and heavier snow in Guyra and Glen Innes and the New England Highway between Glen Innes and Bendemeer is closed. How would a wind turbine cope with driving high winds and snow/ice eh? Hope it has good anti-freeze.