Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Prime Minister Theresa May has responded to climate scientist Myles Allen and others urging her to commit Britain to 100% renewable energy by 2050, and has demanded other countries follow Britain’s lead.
Climate change: UK government to commit to 2050 target
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analystGreenhouse gas emissions in the UK will be cut to almost zero by 2050, under the terms of a new government plan to tackle climate change.
Prime Minister Theresa May said reducing pollution would also benefit public health and cut NHS costs.
Britain is the first major nation to propose this target – and it has been widely praised by green groups.
But some say the phase-out is too late to protect the climate, and others fear that the task is impossible.
…
Number 10 said it was “imperative” other countries followed suit, so there would be a review within five years to ensure other nations were taking similarly ambitious action and British industries were not facing unfair competition.
…
But there will need to be a massive investment in clean energy generation – and that has to be funded by someone.
The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers, or the fossil fuel firms that have caused climate change.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48596775
British politicians have set the the goal; it is now up to Britain’s engineers to step up and do their part, to prove the doubters wrong, and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anyone who equates CO2 with ‘pollution’ can be safely labelled an ignoramus.
Yes exactly Ricard, it seems that the common folk are equating real pollution with CO2, and then lump it all together and call it carbon. And plastic bags are made out of ‘carbon’ and the rivers and oceans are full of plastic pollution, so therefore CO2 is pollution and bad so must be banned.
In the case of Parliment…
Ignoranus
She still here? I thought she’d gone. I guess she’s desperately trying to make a “legacy” move before being pushed out of the door.
She is correct, so instead of wasting money on “carbon footprints” she should be suggesting doing something about real pollution. CO2 is certainly not costing NHS anything. Warmer winters ( whatever the cause ) would be good news for shivering pensioners who cannot afford “clean energy” prices or who have to accept contracts which can mean you get cut off first if they cannot supply demand during extreme cold weather.
Organic chemistry is all about carbon based compounds, by definition. Carbon is the basis of all life on Earth and CO2 is the bottom run on the ladder of life.
The Miles Allen is another dishonest player who has got a nasty case of noble cause corruption. He seems to be getting a lot press in the UK recently.
May is a traitor working for the one world order. Freedom is a thing of the past. We The People is a thing of the past.
Unfortunately, this is the final act of the UK’s worst Tory Prime Minister ever. She’s listened to every alarmist Looney Tune going (including the indoctrinations of the alarmist and left wing BBC) and her final act is two fingers to any scientific evidence or sanity.
Even the Conservative candidates for leader have swallowed the ‘climate alarm’ rhetoric, yes, even Boris Johnson, the likely future PM (who’s girlfriend is a green activist). Regrettably, most of the public have also been indoctrinated by the media, alarmist scientists and school teachers. Anyone questioning the climate religion or asking for evidence or cost analysis is ostracised and banned by the BBC.
We will be lucky if we don’t eventually resemble Venezuela (which has been held in esteem as a model nation by the BBC and Labour party leader ‘Red’ Jeremy Corbyn). This is likely to happen when we fail to leave the EU by Halloween – leading to a vote of no confidence and a general election – resulting in the Brexit party vote splitting the Tory vote (both climate skeptic and vote leave parties) leading to Jeremy ‘Marxist’ Corbyn becoming the next Prime Minister by default.
Was that before or after the World Peace commitment and no child shall live without a fluffy kitten?
Kittens, cats, dogs and all other forms pet animals will be banned as unnecessary consumers of food and therefore producers of carbon. Cats as compulsory carnivores will be doubly banned.
Don’t you know that fluffy kittens EAT MEAT? No, the kids will have to make do with lovely teddys made from recycled polar bear furs, with a nice picture of Greta Thunberg, admonishing them to live a life of climate fear.
Is she just deliberately punishing Brits for not supporting her attempts to get out of the referendum? Perhaps she thinks this will be her legacy instead of only being known for failure?
Will be failure either way.
AYUP Instead of being known for Failure, her lagacy will be one of Utter Failure
A time worn adage is ‘If you shoot yourself in the foot, don’t reload the gun!’
The fumbling weak leadership of Theresa May has not only shot the UK in the foot and reloaded the gun, but has just shot the UK in the other foot! Then she invites ‘other nations’ to follow her ‘leadership’… as she attempts to reload yet again! Is there no end to this self-destructive insanity???
Don’t look back Union Jack. Get yourself Free! Make the United Kingdom Great Again…..
We’re doomed!
Fortunately, so is she, but not quickly enough.
Followed by? The very people making these suggestions.
Doomed indeed!
Sadly these are not just suggestions but may actually become what passes for law around here.
“tackle climate change”
There’s that idiotic phrase again. So they plan on stopping the Earth rotating on its axis, stopping the moon from orbiting the Earth, stopping the Earth from revolving around the Sun, and stopping the Sun from shining? That’s the only way they’re going to “tackle climate change”. Idiots.
I laugh at all their colorful euphemisms: “address climate change”,”tackle climate change”,”take on climate change” ad nauseum.
Yes, they are deficient by a single word…Alarmism
Address Climate Change Alarmism…
Stop the Chicken Littles of the world from taking over.
To show just how futile they are change the prefix word to Eliminate or End.
If you stop the sun from shining, the other things no longer matter.
Those three words are *everywhere* in UK. Signs on buses, bus stops, and in radio adverts as justification to get one of those so-called “smart-meters” to be installed.
Say it often enough, eventually the words work.
Here’s proof, I guess.
Fascist Big Brother world.
Where is King Knut when you need him?
Lame duck makes dim-witted quack…. How is she intending to impose this on her successors?? British Parliamentary doctrine does not allow her to do so.
Most MPs across all parties support this drivel. As long as this sad situation remains, such targets can be passed into law (as was the Climate Change Act) and we’re stuck with them until such time as there are enough sane MPs to repeal the legislation. A similar situation arises with the law that requires us to squander a percentage of GDP (or some other measure of national income – I forget the detail) each year on overseas aid. It is virtue signalling of the highest order.
The same way politicians foisted the EU on us without asking and then when we voted to leave, try to get us to have to vote again and then just ignored it.
“solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.”
Don’t think solar cares whether the wind blows.
It cares whether there is daylight or not.
no but when turbine dont spin and snows on pv panels
uks gunna be up sh*tcreek
deservedly so
this reminds me of uhbummers nasty gift of millions just as he was booted out.
if she wasnt loathed enough? this’ll make sure she is
But it does care about night, cloud, low angles, fog ……
Look at the last year graph bottom right here :
http://gridwatch.co.uk
Solar is doing next to jack-all 8 months of the year, and wind is quite variable even in winter months went it’s regularly more windy…
I see that biomass is regarded as renewable. Just as well that burning wood pellets doesn’t produce any of the dreaded CO2!
“The renewability of trees, unlike fossil fuels, helps explain why biomass can eventually reduce GHGs but only over long periods. The amount of increase in GHGs by 2050 depends on which and how forests are ultimately harvested, how the energy is used and whether wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas. Yet overall, replacing fossil fuels with wood will likely result in 2-3x more carbon in the atmosphere in 2050 per gigajoule of final energy (Supplementary Note 2). Because the likely renewable alternative would be truly low carbon solar or wind, the plausible, net effect of the biomass provisions could be to turn a ~5% decrease in energy emissions by 2050 into increases of ~5–10% or even more (Supplementary Note 2).”
TY – JOUR
AU – Searchinger, Timothy D.
AU – Beringer, Tim
AU – Holtsmark, Bjart
AU – Kammen, Daniel M.
AU – Lambin, Eric F.
AU – Lucht, Wolfgang
AU – Raven, Peter
AU – van Ypersele, Jean-Pascal
PY – 2018
DA – 2018/09/12
TI – Europe’s renewable energy directive poised to harm global forests
JO – Nature Communications
SP – 3741
VL – 9
IS – 1
AB
So no one contradicted what I said, but proceeded to tell me what solar does care about.
Somebody needs to remind them that the Sun isn’t renewable. Once the Sun dies out, then what are you going to do? You’re stuck with a boatload of useless solar panels, that’s what.
.
.
.
There’s no need to worry about ‘Global Warming.’ Soon enough there will be so many satellites in orbit that no sunlight will be able to get through.
I cannot remember who said that nothing is impossible for someone who will not have to do it, but it seems to apply here.
A.H. Weller
Solar power works just fine in the summer and wind in the winter… and those aren’t the only options for the UK.
We get an average of 5 days a year of low wind winter conditions and most of those are high pressure with clear skies. Plus we have GW of connectivity to the continent.
The facts are renewables can and will supply our electricity… the few days of dull low wind are not an insoluable problem.
Just when I think you couldn’t post anything more deluded, dishonest, or stupid, you surpass yourself.
We must value Griff for his ‘diversity’, seemingly……
I can assure Griff that the 300+ turbine Whitelees wind farm spent far more than 5 days idle last winter, as did the vast number of other smaller arrays that scar the uplands of South Lanarkshire. Couple that with 6 hours of daylight in mid-winter and where exactly will the fantasy power come from to heat people’s homes when gas fired central heating is banned and we all want to charge our electric cars overnight. Solar will never be viable in northern parts of the globe as it provides no power for 18 hours of the day.
And it’s not surprising that within a generation of the arrival of steam-powered, ocean-going vessels, sailing ships which had been used for millennia were replaced by coal fired ships. Somehow people in the 19th century realised that reliance on an unreliable, inefficient renewable power source like the fickle wind was holding back global economic growth and ditched as soon as there was an alternative.
The wind is no more reliable or efficient than it ever was in the past, so why are so many people so ignorant of history to think we can run our economies on it.
That would require you to double up on your generation sources so that you have double the solar for when the wind doesn’t blow and double the wind for when the sun is insufficient or at night.
When the wind isn’t blowing, Solar would need to cover your whole nut…AND…when the sun isn’t available (night, weeks long storms) you would neen enough wind to cover your nut…AND… when the sun is unavailable and the wind is too strong or non existant, you would need enough batteries to supply weeks worth of power.
For Impractical Unreliables to be youe sole source you need to double up on everything because at some point, only 1 source will be availably to meet the entire demand.
To eliminate CO2 in electric production AND to have a Constant Reliable source, Gen2/3/4 Nuclear IS the ONLY cost effective option
If you are going to make up stuff, why not go whole hog and declare that there is never a low wind day and the sun shines 24 hours a day?
Hey Mark, have you ever tried to have a rational conversation with a climate alarmist worshipper?
They will happily tell you the wind always blows somewhere in the world and yes the sun does shine 24 hours/day.
They imagine it is just a cabling issue when the sun sets in the UK it is shining in the USA so we just need to plug in.
Theresa May and those ignorant of physics always imagine the impossible is possible.
The difference today as opposed to 50 years ago is, propaganda has been adopted by the institutions and has replaced education as the prime function of the system.
If Einstein had been around today pushing his ideas, the BBC would have banned him from the airwaves for daring to challenge Newtonian physics which is settled science, ( in their view). As if such a thing as settled science could ever exist!
Goebbels has gone global.
Griff,
you must be looking at a different U.K. grid than I am. I never tire of saying that you cannot use averages to justify intermittent renewable generation. Weather and the grid does not do average!
Connectivity is not an answer either. Originally it was an efficiency measure, as French and U.K. peak loads occurred at different times. Now it seems to be used, along with others, to supplement our supply. France is going the wrong way shutting nuclear and increasing part time power, this makes our grid even more fragile, as so often low wind occurs not just in the U.K. but Europe wide.
No matter how much capacity we install of wind and solar, there are times of virtually nil output from that source so we must have fossil fuel generation to cover that time.
I could go on about balancing, and other more technical problems but I fear I would be wasting my time.
Wow Griff, a long really post from you! Things must be slow on the other forums you troll, eh? Gotta keep that word count up when you’re being paid piece work!
The only viable alternative is 3-4th generation nukes. Think about a small, walkaway reactor powering an independent community..
OOPs this isn’t about independence..
I will bet Boris or Nigel have other plans..
Theresa May is a proof positive politicians can exhale pollution to an extent it affects public health and NHS costs.
Don’t be silly. Just go without power. Voluntarily cripple the nation with silly-energy. Stay cozy with all the warm feeeeeeeelings you will enjoy for having SAVED the planet. Recapture some of that 16th Century glory of Medieval England.
However, something tells me that ol’ Prince Charlie didn’t quite convince President Trump to surrender to the Crown’s crowning achievement of scientific regression.
It’s OK. He’s got a new electric Jag.
Soon a Green flag will replace the Union Jack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_in_Islam
How sad that those supposedly in charge have been taken in by the “Carbon” myth. Cutting pollution and stopping habitat destruction is one thing, bankrupting the country based on the “Carbon” story is another.
However, it is all pointless as we will apparently all be dead in 12 years!
Is she trying to pull an “Obama Move” ?
Well… if they take France’s lead, and go all-in on nuclear, then no matter what level of pet-polity project the public funds drive wind and solar on foggy Britain, they’ll at least still have fundamentally reliable power 24 by 7.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
Aren’t most of the French nuclear power plants about to go out of commission, with no replacements?
“The government hasn’t yet spelled out if the cost will fall on bill-payers, or tax-payers,…”
Not much of a difference between these two. Sounds like somebody is going to get rich(er) if they go through with this.
The difference is that taxes are scrutinised in the budget – whereas bills are not.
So, if the government force us to pay £1000/year as extra taxes – that makes headline news, but if the same government gets the same people to pay £1000/year extra on their bills as an “obligation” the press are silent.
That was one of the main innovations – the hiding of finance – that got this scam going.
It appears to me that May has left a trail of failures and that this will simply be the cherry on the cake.
She has done exactly what was desired.
Precisely, she has furthered the UN global governance agenda by probably stopping Brexit and promoting the climate con.
An interesting article in today’s Daily Telegraph on what the implications are for the net zero CO2 on a whole raft of businesses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/12/2050-zero-carbon-emissions-target-means-consumers-business/
The Telegraph article (cookiewalled) says “It’s going to cost money, and plenty of it. A figure of £1 trillion over the next three decades has been mooted. The payback, however, could be enormous. Not only will the green economy add to economic growth by creating jobs, but cleaner air brings considerable health benefits …“. Please note that Bastiat’s Broken Window fallacy applies: every job created in the “green economy” will destroy two or more others. Bastiat refers to “what is seen and what is not seen”. In this case, what is seen is the £1 trillion cost. What is not seen is the maybe £multi-trillion indirect cost – in other words the total destruction of the UK economy.
Cleaner air is really worth having, but this is a stupid way to achieve it. Cleaner air has been and can continue to be achieved incrementally at relatively puny cost.
Why do you think there was a Chinese Citizen guiding the BBC in the 28gate scandal?
Why do you think Russia was funding the greenspin groups to push the scam?
It’s clearly in the interests of the Chinese and Russians to assist the west to commit economic suicide – and never have our politicians been so willing to help them.
A recurring theme in the Dilbert cartoons is that the marketing department makes promises that the engineers can’t deliver. link
Don Lancaster has been an inventors’ guru for many years. One of his pieces of advice was something like, “If people have been working on something for a long time, and it hasn’t happened yet, don’t expect that you will do any better than everyone else at making it work.” My corollary would be, “it ain’t gonna happen any time soon.”
The technological progress in computers has led many people to believe that technology as a whole develops according to Moore’s law. That’s not true at all. I would say that Eroom’s Law is much closer to the general case.
On a happier note, what Theresa May was smoking is now legal in Canada (if that’s what turns your crank).
I’ve heard that multi-grade oil was first “developed” by marketing and then engineering was given the specs.
Also that sales of shampoo were doubled by a one word change in the usage label.
They added the word “repeat” after “Lather, rinse.”
I follow their label advice, but the bottle last for only one shower.
“…and figure out how to make solar power work during prolonged nation wide low wind conditions in the middle of a 50° North winter.”
Easy peasy.
First build out nuclear power to run the entire UK grid.
Then inside abandoned warehouses, install rows and rows of bright LED projection lamps onto the ceilings.
Have the LED banks shine onto PV solar arrays in a dense configuration on the floors.
As each “solar power factory comes on-line” slowly transition the UK grid to power from it.
COntinue to build nuclear. Since PV is at best 25% efficient at light to electricity conversion, build about 4 times as much nuclear power plants as needed if they directly powered the grid. But then these “solar power factories” can run 24/7/365 since they are nuclear powered.
The extra cost of 3 times as many nuclear power plants and massive “solar power factories” is the price of virtue signaling. B
Maybe it would be easier to just put a whole lot of mirrors in space to concentrate all that free solar sunlight and concentrate it all on the terrestrial PV panels. In fact, with enough mirrors, we could even have the ‘sunshine’ at night and then all our electricity problems are solved forever. Mirrors are cheaper to make than solar panels, and there is no end of silicate sand to make all the mirrors (and solar PV panels). Simple…
you are failing to take clouds and weather into account with space mirrors to send concentrated solar energy to Earth’s surface.
Focusing the energy to a spot on the Sahara Desert might work. But you Might fry a few camels, people, and birds in the process. Then UK would depend on North Africa for its electricity
I was trying to out sarc you with your shining a light on the solar panels to make them productive in winter. Actually, it is hopeless installing any PV panels with a cloudy fall/winter environment where solar insolation at 50+ degrees latitude is negligible for 3-4 months anyway. It is bad enough having high cost, low density power from solar PV even when sited in a high solar location such as California. Maybe some day space based solar PV/mirrors will be viable, but probably only for future space based smelters/factories in LEO/lunar orbit.
There’s no sarcasm any more that doesn’t sound like a real Progressive greenie.
She is just trying to make sure her “Worst Prime Minister Ever” title lasts a very long time, a task in which she will doubtless be successful. The problem is there is no political opposition to the Greens and their lunatic ideas. Once introduced none of our spineless “leaders” will dare repeal this until it is far too late.
So first May tries to push Fake Brexit, and now she’s having a Fake Resignation.
This is why she should have been thrown out of Downing Street the instant she ‘resigned’. She’ll go down in British history as the worst Prime Minister ever.
The only people these horrendous ideals are going to affect are the common folk. May, Allen, and the rich elitists will never have to worry about the negative economic affects they gleefully thrust upon the middle class (The true end game).
If I were one of those companies, I would wave a fond farewell to the UK.
As Judge Alsup observed in the cities vs. oil companies case, the demonstrated benefits of fossil fuels far outweigh the speculative harms. link Anyway, it’s the people burning the fossil fuels who more directly cause anthropogenic CO2.
Oil is a commodity and, as such, has a world price based on market conditions. If Britain chose to tax it at the coast, they will harm only their citizens and domestic businesses; oil firms won’t care. And national competitiveness …?
Australia is doing it’s bit it has just approved the Adani Coal Mine which will be one of our largest and there are 9 other approvals for mines which could join it in coming years. The eco-loons are livid and will probably try the court system but with both labor and liberal backing it they will just change the laws if there is a problem.
So we are going completely the other way to the UK and will provide the world coal until at least 2050.