Claim: British Conservative Climate Change Plans “The Stuff of Dreams”

Theresa May announcing her resignation. By UK Governmentlink

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Conservative New South Wales State Premier Gladys Berejiklian has told former Conservative British Prime Minister Theresa May how we can all only hope to emulate Britain’s net zero climate change plan.

UK conservatives’ action on climate change ‘stuff of dreams’, NSW Premier tells Theresa May

By Nick O’Malley
September 2, 2020 — 9.48pm

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has told former UK prime minister Theresa May that from an Australian perspective it was “the stuff of dreams” to see her conservative government legislate last year net-zero carbon emissions targets by 2050.

Speaking in an online forum hosted by the Liberal Party-linked environment group Coalition for Conservation, Ms Berejiklian said Ms May’s climate policy set an example to other conservative governments. She joked that NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean should inform the Federal government that the state was adopting the UK climate strategy.

“To have a conservative Tory government legislate 2050 emissions is the stuff of dreams in Australia …. We can only help to emulate it,” Ms Berejiklian said on Wednesday night.

Asked how she overcame political obstacles to legislate for net-zero emissions Ms May said there was little opposition and historically the UK Conservative Party has embraced action on climate change, noting that one of the first world leaders to address climate change was Margaret Thatcher.

Read more:

As WUWT recently noted, this “dream” is currently costing ordinary British taxpayers around £10 billion per year, during a time of hardship caused by the Covid-19 lockdown. And it is far from clear how cold climate high population density Britain could ever generate enough renewable energy to be self sufficient.

Even Australia, with all our vast, empty sun drenched deserts, is struggling to find an economically viable path to 100% renewable energy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 2, 2020 10:19 pm

Don’t any of these folks ever pay attention to future energy technologies that are vastly superior to renewable crap? Moltex Energy, developer of a molten salt SMR that can produce cheaper power than just about any other technology in a maner that not even the most anti-nuke can object to on any logical basis, is an English company thathad to go abroad to find backers. It’s rather hilarious that these global warming types claim that they are adopting advanced technologies when things like wind are primitive 16th century technologies.

Reply to  ColMosby
September 2, 2020 11:12 pm

Your knowledge of history needs some updating -Hero of Alexandria (10BC to c70AD) in the Greek Golden Age had a windmill to drive an organ (sorry can not post the JPG image) there were also similar windmills on Greek islands to draw water. I have a picture of 7th century windmills with a vertical axle for grinding grain in Iran (think the ruins are still there).
However, you are right about molten salt Thorium reactor power plants. The Chinese and Indians are up with this technology. Both countries have said they will have operating units in 2021. The Chinese have stolen technology from everywhere and as with the space race (eg landing a probe on the other side of the moon) they are ahead in technology development. However, the Indians are not far behind. They have the largest resources of Monazite (the main source of Thorium) of any country in the world so development of the Thorium reactors is in their interest.

Julian Flood
Reply to  cementafriend
September 3, 2020 5:08 am

There’s a lot of monazite sand on the seabed off the Falklands,



Reply to  cementafriend
September 3, 2020 8:00 am

I am not expert in this, but as far as I know, from what I can read, India will use thorium in conventional reactors. China also.
That has nothing to do with molten salt reactors.
Why do people keep bringing this up?

Andre Den Tandt
Reply to  Billy
September 3, 2020 10:03 am

They keep bringing it up because a pure thorium reactor was operating very successfully for years in the US, which gave all its research data to China in return for a promise to share all future development data. Were it not for the US needing plutonium for bombs at the time, thorium might be the dominant technology by now.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 12:08 am

ColMosby, Proposing molten salt reactors as the energy answer is a distraction, no better than the current effort to replace “fossil fuels” with sunshine and breezes.
Surely no serious student of MSR technology would suggest first commercial operation prior to 2035. Accelerated testing methods of the corrosion resistant materials required will not satisfy regulators much less investors. Such testing over a 5 or more likely 10 year period may find the “best” materials but the “best” materials need to last 40 years to be commercial.
Realistically, the only hope we have for phasing in nuclear technology from 2030-2050 is NuScale’ small scale modular reactors. Don’t doubt it (IMHO).
TerraPower will run tests with depleted uranium, which is not used in fission, to determine which materials can hold molten salt without being damaged by corrosion.
Note: “determine which materials can hold molten salt”. Good luck with that. There isn’t such a material. Maybe someday.
Hastelloy N has not been qualified for use in nuclear construction, and significant additional characterization would be required for Code qualification. …
… It is recommended that a systematic development program be initiated to develop new nickel alloys that contain a fine, stable dispersion of intermetallic particles to trap helium at the interface between the matrix and particle, and with increased solid-solution strengthening from addition of refractory elements.
With support from computational materials science tools, a speculative time frame for a down-selection program, using 20-30 kg heats, is about four to five years….

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 12:52 am

Wow! Somebody finally talking sense about the unobtanium needed to build molten salt reactors. Now if somebody will talk about the radiation containment problems of homogeneous molten salt reactors we may approach a rational fact-based perspective.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 4:14 am

I do not understand Nuclear Science in any form, but I am interested. So what about Moltex?

William Astley
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 5:09 pm

The molten salt reactor is only going to have salt in it for 7 seven years. So the material problem is solved.

Your info is not correct. The molten salt material testing occurred 40 years ago in Oakland Laboratories. The test was a complete success and the results were hidden.

Roughly 15 years ago, a NASA engineer while looking for a reactor design to use for a moon base proposal….. Found the Oakland Laboratories molten salt test data and some of the test engineers and scientists.

He sent the test data all over the world. And now there is a Canadian/US company that is expected to have operating molten salt reactor by mid 2020.

Terrestrial Energy is currently in phase 2 review with both the US and Canadian nuclear regulatory agencies.

Terrestrial Energy is planning to have three molten salt reactors installed and operating by the mid 2020s. Subject to regulatory approval.

The Terrestrial energy ‘reactor’ is a sealed can that can be trucked to site. It produces heat at 600C and is a cheap as coal to operate and build.

The reactor can has a 7 year life, after which time it is drained and a new can installed. The can after it has been drained, is low grade radioactive waste.

The molten salt reactor design optimized can produce heat at 600 C, with no possible chemical or mechanical fail mode that can result in a fuel leak, release, explosion, and so forth so it does not need a containment building to contain an explosion. The plan it the reactors will be located in buried vaults.

Oakville, Ontario and New York – December 4, 2019 – The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have selected Terrestrial Energy’s Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®) for the first joint technical review of an advanced, non-light water nuclear reactor technology.

The selection of Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR® for joint technical review follows the August 2019 Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between the CNSC and the NRC that further expands the agencies’ cooperation on activities associated with advanced reactor and SMR technologies. The MOC’s collaborative technical reviews are intended to increase regulatory effectiveness as well as reaffirm the agencies’ commitment to safety and security.

Terrestrial Energy’s IMSR® is an advanced reactor employing Generation IV molten salt technology with a power output of 195 MWe. It is currently the subject of regulatory engagement in both Canada and the United States. IMSR® submissions to the CNSC for Phase 2 of the Vendor Design Review (VDR) process commenced in December 2018; the IMSR® is the only advanced reactor in Phase 2 of that process. Since February, the IMSR® has been the subject of NRC pre-licensing activities supported by grant funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  William Astley
September 3, 2020 8:59 pm

William, I would love to be wrong about MSR, with a bunch of luck (and extensive full length of service testing) material issues will be resolved. The idea of replacing the corroded “can” every seven (7) years sounds great, much better than a 40 year materials life requirement for a conventional nuke. You must be comfortable with economics of doing so. Wonderful. The paper cited below includes coupon testing out to 3,000 hours (125 days/4 months). Coupon testing won’t mean anything to the regulators, because it doesn’t include the additional stress from forming, welding. and operational cycling. But factors of safety will. High temperature salt water mixed with uranium will require a safety factor of 2, 4, more? 20 years to regulatory approval? Maybe a commercial facility in rural China in 10 years, bets anyone?

• Published: 26 June 2018
Corrosion of Structural Alloys in High-Temperature Molten Fluoride Salts for Applications in Molten Salt Reactors
• Guiqiu Zheng &
• Kumar Sridharan
The corrosion of structural alloys in molten fluoride salts is recognized as an important consideration in the successful fruition of MSRs. The protective surface oxide layer that is relied upon for corrosion protection in most high-temperature environments is generally unstable in molten fluoride salts.8 Alloying elements promoting the formation of protective oxide layers such as Cr, Al, and Si are prone to dissolution in molten fluoride salts. Such corrosion can lead to the thinning of structural components, and, additionally, the corrosion products can plate-out on the relatively cooler sections of the reactor system due to the strong dependence of solubility on temperature. The corrosion can be driven by impurities in the salt and thermal gradients in the reactor system, as well as the presence of dissimilar materials in the molten salt.9 In the reactor environment, the strong radiation fields can exacerbate alloy corrosion in molten salt, but the mechanisms are not conclusively understood.10

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 4, 2020 7:21 am

William continued (molten salt) copy
TerraPower’s CEO Chris Levesque says the company hopes to see more reactors by 2050.
Note: I repeat: NuScale SMR’s 2030-2050, then MSR’s.

Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 12:13 am

This link may be of interest

Great technology, but I am not expecting a working prototype for a decade…

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 12:40 am

“but I am not expecting a working prototype for a decade…”

So pretty much like nearly all “green” technology , hey griff.

Solar and wind are still not working for a large proportion of the time.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 1:12 am

Griff, in the meantime Germany and California have proven wind and solar can’t work without battery storage and that battery storage is prohititly expensive. CCGT now and a gradual phase in of NuScale SMR’s 2030 to 2050. Then MSR’s

Timo, Not That One
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 8:45 am

Somebody please explain to me how batteries for storage are going to be charged.
I would presume your solar and wind power will be dispatched to the consumer while it is sunny or windy, rather than being used to charge batteries for when the sun sets. Do we need to make a duplicate set of wind turbines and solar panels that will only be used to charge batteries?

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Timo, Not That One
September 3, 2020 9:45 pm

Timo, the short answer is yes a duplicate set would be required. The correct answer is solar can not work without storage, and storage is now and always will be more expensive than generating the “solar power”. Solar is worth less than nothing junk and only exists because of ignorant voters, corrupt politicians and very talented snake oil salespersons. (IMHO)

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 9:17 am

The UK uses diesel generators as STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) backup.

STOR is one of National Grid’s key reserve mechanisms. It draws upon standby generators (of 250kVA and over) if a large power station fails, or if demand outstrips supply.

The system works by paying rent (termed ‘availability’) for STOR capacity, which becomes a utilisation charge when the reserve is needed. Your generator would be made available to National Grid throughout the year, 24 hours a day, and most revenue will derive from availability payments.

Availability is paid during peak periods set by National Grid. These windows vary depending on the time of year, but currently start at 07:00 and end at 22:30, equating to about 11 hours per day. Most utilisation occurs during between these times.

STOR is a growing market and there is an opportunity to gain revenue from your generator. As energy shortages continue to affect supply, and renewable technologies struggle to compensate, generators have become an invaluable backup system. There is very little impact on generator run hours and the scheme does not adversely affect the generator’s performance or reliability.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 3, 2020 9:50 pm

Have you seen the cost of Stour? It’s hair-raising.


John Smith
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 7, 2020 9:04 am

If your batteries are big enough for you to go 1 day without wind (assuming they were fully charged), what if you get 2 days of no wind?

If your batteries are big enough for you to go 2 days without wind (assuming they were fully charged), what if you get 3 days of no wind?


Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 5:30 am

you didnt expect to see summer Arctic ice this year or Polar Bear populations thriving…sorry Griff

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 6:37 am

So it’s a race with fusion energy and space elevators. Basically what we have here is great retirement plan for politicians.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 8:38 am

Griff still hasn’t explained why Denmark and Germany, with the largest proportion of Wind and Solar in their energy mix, have the most expensive electricity in the World.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 3, 2020 10:00 pm

Graem, Does Griff ever respond to comment? If so I missed it. I have a couple questions for him that have gone unanswered. I’ll help you our with the expensive wind and solar question. You don’t need an answer you know the facts. Everyone that has studied the issues for a few hours (except the REAL deniers) know that Germany, Denmark and California have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it’s worth less than nothing junk that ONLY raises the cost of electricity.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
September 4, 2020 7:59 am

No, Griff rarely replies for a couple of reasons- Nothing much that he posts is worth a reply. What he posts is usually just “trolling” to raise an argument, which he does not answer. He might be paid on the number of counter posts he can get up.
On the rare occasions he does reply he’s not responsive to other posts.

Hamish Grant
Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 12:16 am

The R in SMR if of course “reactor” as in nuclear. Tragically, your typical footy-mad, massive SUV driving, barbie loving Aussie has been totally brainwashed by the hard left, the Greens & the NIMBY crowd. They are convinced that the risks from the invisible death ray & waste disposal problems associated with early generation conventional reactors will make it political suicide for any party to tries to overturn the nuke construction ban enshrined in federal legislation.

Ewin Barnett
Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 3:53 am

Brilliant Light Power and the Mills hydrino SunCell device. Zero emissions. Making good progress towards commercialization.

Reply to  Ewin Barnett
September 3, 2020 6:02 am

Scamming investors since 1991.

Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 6:07 am

Wind turbines today attempt to extract energy from air movement. The objective is the same, but today’s technology is actually quite marvelous and is anything but primitive.

The main problem is that wind power is unreliable.

Reply to  Scissor
September 3, 2020 6:54 am

Tides are reliable. Not seeing a lot of articles on tidal generators. For that matter, find it interesting that Freon turned out to be “dangerous” right about the time Dupont’s patent ran out and a number of “freon generator” patents had been granted.

Any politician who tells you they’re “saving us” from “climate change” already has enough money to NOT be effected by their solutions. Easy enough to tell cause they also pass laws to prevent you from getting off the grid.

D. J. Hawkins
September 3, 2020 8:55 am

Please stop flogging that lie about DuPont patents for Freon. The patent for Freon was issued in 1928 to Frigidaire, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric. DuPont’s first patents for HFC’s, the compounds replacing Freons, was in 1994, 5 years after the Montreal Protocol went into effect.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 4, 2020 8:55 am

It doesn’t seem to be much of a lie, D.J. Yes, Frigidaire was a wholly owned subsidiary of GE in 1928, but two short years later in 1930, GE and DuPont formed a different subsidiary “Kinetic Chemicals” specifically to produce Freon. The manufacturing patent for it, “Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons”, U.S. Patent #3258500, was owned by DuPont, and was indeed set to expire in 1979. DuPont had new patents for new CFCs as early as 1986. The full story is a bit more complicated than that, of course, but the gist is the same:

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 8, 2020 11:42 am

@Steven-Keppel Jones

Your time line has at least one hole in it. The original patent was in 1928, the patent you cite was not filed until 1959 and granted in 1968. So, somehow they were making Freon between 1928 and 1968 by some means. Process patents are a little precarious to hang a conspiracy on as they may be so narrow in scope that, while interesting, they don’t have a major effect on the product market as a whole. In this case, a method for converting halo-hydrocarbons, with or without a fluorine atom, to completely fluoridated compounds. Most of the example compounds in the patent aren’t what we think of as “Freons”. You still haven’t answered the observation regarding the 5-year gap between the Protocol and DuPont’s HFC patent. That’s pretty poor preparation if you’re trying to monopolize a market.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 8, 2020 3:10 pm

5 years is not such a long time when you are dealing with multi-decadal patent terms. Whether they handled the situation optimally or not, it sure looks to the untrained eye like they stood to gain a lot from outlawing Freon and replacing it with other chemicals that they did have continuing patent protection for. Is there a smoking gun to indicate that the Freon ban was entirely their fault? Not that I can see precisely, but it sure looks like they nudged the process along so that the result would be in their favour in the end…

Reply to  Scissor
September 3, 2020 7:01 am

Tidal power is reliable, but no one seems to be looking at it seriously.

September 3, 2020 8:17 am

Reliable but diffuse.
Most places on the planet, tides only rise and fall a few feet and it takes 6 hours for each phase to happen.
The few places with large tidal surges exist because of natural harmonics. Any attempt to tap this power would necessarily interfere with those harmonics.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2020 9:29 am

Wind also affects tidal flows, which makes it not entirely predictable. Because the reversal of direction happens about every 12 hours and 25 minutes it means maximum output is not always at the time of maximum demand. Unlike Solar and wind to use tidal you have to have a coastline.
All of which makes tidal less attractive that wind or solar, probably a good thing as it saves one lot of subsidies

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2020 9:49 am

To say nothing of the maintenance nightmare they present. Salt water is corrosive.

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2020 12:40 pm

Tidal power requires tidal lagoons.
These, of necessity, are close to land, which means much of the water has a load of sediment; when the tide is at a stand, tidal flow is minimal or zero.
The sediment then – part;y – drops out.
Over years, decades, the basin silts up.

And – as Ex-KK says – salt water is corrosive. It doesn’t play well with moving parts.
Or Electricity.


Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2020 12:47 pm

Great for surfing.

September 3, 2020 9:54 am

Glenn look at the Bay of Fundy project … it has mostly been a complete fustercluck but I haven’t followed it closely.
Here is a link …. u can search for additional links yourself if u really are interested.

Reply to  stewartpid
September 6, 2020 10:29 am

It looks like it is still ongoing, but it seems to be on its third(?) company taking over the project. They are trying something different, and got the job by promising to recover the turbine on the bottom of the bay.
On average human knowledge is doubling every 13 months; new tech, new materials and different ways of using same. How quickly they can be applied to the problem is another matter.
Corrosion in sea water is admittedly a problem (for those who mentioned), but not on the level of “molten salt” addressed in similar manner. Time and tech.

Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 9:32 pm

Tidal power. Stop right there. Can you imagine what the eco’s would do if someone actually tried to install such a system. Maybe offshore Cali, Oregon, Washington? End of discussion. Here in Cali Speaker Pelosi and Governor Newsom would give great lip service for it as long as no one was seriously trying to install one. Then multiple Environmental impact Statements ad infinitum. “We strongly support this green technology but we need to be sure it’s done the right way blah, blah”

Reply to  ColMosby
September 3, 2020 8:10 am

I find it fascinating how you can be sure the cost of these plants when we still haven’t developed all the technologies that are going to be needed for them to operate.

September 2, 2020 10:20 pm

Stuff of nightmares more like.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 3, 2020 4:05 am

In the dark.

Joel O'Bryan
September 2, 2020 10:25 pm

The Climate Zombie Virus (CZV) is real. And it’s not a Corona Virus.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2020 12:42 am

First thing it does is turn the brain to an oozing green sludge.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 2, 2020 10:39 pm

You can sort of see the direction everything is taking in the post-covid world:

Small business / entrepreneurs / sole traders, et al (incl. employees) will be taxed to death so that the government (public servants) and it’s boondoggles (like climate change) continue to live the high life.

Past disturbing. Surely something will have to give, like the fed up citizens will vote for a someone who will slash government including its boondoggles.

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 2, 2020 11:17 pm

Sounds like it is straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged – too many Leaners and not enough Lifters. But no sight of a John Galt.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
September 3, 2020 7:31 am

I tried reading AS when I was young, but was put off by the stilted dialogue and characterizations, particularly the cartoonish stupidity and venality Rand ascribed to her bad guys. However, based on an open letter to the alumni that I just received from the president of my former alma mater, I think Rand pretty much nailed it.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
September 3, 2020 4:11 am

You post is hate speech and has been removed by the Moderators.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Harry Davidson
September 4, 2020 7:53 am

Whose post?

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
September 4, 2020 9:39 am

It was a joke. For the record, I do not have the power to remove posts, nor the desire come to that.

Phillip Bratby
September 2, 2020 10:46 pm

UK Conservative Party is no longer conservative. The Conservative Party has long succumbed to the Long March through the Institutions and is now a soft left-wing party. Since the demise of UKIP there is no longer a mainstream right-of-centre party in the UK.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 3, 2020 12:38 am

None of the so-called “Conservative” parties in Australia are really conservative either.

All bow to most of the leftist agendas. (scared of the mouthy ABC and MSM)

Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 4:02 am

Agreed but don’t forget the pay-offs yes slime is generous to those that count. Every day ScoMo runs a master class in the art of playing both sides While bagging the loot.

Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 6:35 am

I was going to say — there’s no “conservative” party in GB by American standards. Not to say there aren’t a few true European conservatives, but that GB party is just a watered-down socialist/marxist party, like every other party in Europe.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 3, 2020 2:07 am

Next year there is a Scottish Election.

If you think the Tories in England are daft, the ones in Scotland are not only flag waving nutters but mostly to the left of Blair, embracing extreme woke causes. UKIP have disappeared leaving many right people with no one to vote for.

However, not only is there a massive gap in right politics in Scotland, but because of the electoral system a new party only needs about 8-15% of the vote to get a candidate in. In other words, a relatively small group of people and a modest amount of money could easily give other parties a right good kicking.

And that might just get the message through to the brain dead Tories in London, that they better get their act together else they are going to lose their place as the representatives of right politics.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
September 3, 2020 9:53 am

I read that there was a potential independence party which planned to field candidates in the additional members part of the election. I don’t have a real understanding of how it works but because the SNP will win so many constituency MSPs on the first past the post system that it won’t get any additional members, but a party only standing in the additional members vote or having no constituency MSPs will get its full share of additional members. For a 10% share that means 5 or 6 MSPs which would give pro-independence parties an unassailable majority. This system was supposed to stop a pro-independence party having full control as enough unionist MSPs from the three main parties would be elected in total by the two methods

That being the case it’s too late

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 4, 2020 6:48 am

It’s not unionists versus non-unionists, it’s people (both SNP & Tory) stuck in the 18th century versus the real modern world where their politics in bananas.

The Scotland of the SNP is a total myth. It never really existed, not at least as a unified Kingdom and throughout recorded history most Scots had more in Common with the English or even Norwegians than they had with Gaelic speaking people in the Highlands.

September 2, 2020 10:50 pm

“noting that one of the first world leaders to address climate change was Margaret Thatcher.”

Climate gibberish is going all logarithmic on us.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 2, 2020 11:13 pm

If I remember correctly, Thatcher said that global warming was a socialist plot.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  d
September 3, 2020 1:10 am

It was Thatcher that put “money on the table” to demonize CO2. She later said in her autobiography that she regretted it.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  d
September 3, 2020 9:33 am

For Thatcher it was a tool to use against the coal miners, in particular the NUM (National Union of Miners) led by Arthur Scargill and Joe Gormley. I think her preferred option was nuclear. Like every genie once out of the bottle the wishes granted weren’t what was expected.

Reply to  philincalifornia
September 3, 2020 2:34 am

Margaret Thatcher- address to the UN General Assembly in New York on 8 November, 1989-
“But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.
…..We have to look forward not backward and we will only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international effort……
Before we act, we need the best possible scientific assessment: otherwise we risk making matters worse…..”
Margaret Thatcher in her Biography “ Statecraft”(2002)-
“ The doomsayers’ favourite subject today is climate change.This has a number of attractions for them.
First the science is extremely obscure so they cannot be easily be proved wrong.
Secondly 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 other but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for world wide supra-national socialism….”
So please do not let people ignorant of the facts tell you that Conservatives, especially Margaret Thatcher, are global warming activists and all conservatives should get on board.

Reply to  Herbert
September 3, 2020 5:25 am

What makes it even funnier, besides no one ever showing any data for the before and after of her addressing it, levels of atmospheric CO2 were below the “safe” level of 350ppm during her tenure as PM.

Words have meaning and farcical words have farcical meaning.

Reply to  Herbert
September 3, 2020 8:16 am

I reckon Maggie took heed of that sage advice –
“When the facts change, I change my mind”

September 2, 2020 11:05 pm

Politicians do not understand that the law of thermodynamics is not responsive to legislation. “100% renewable” is nonsense, almost as much as the impossible reversing CO2 emissions, can “restore” the climate to an undefinable ideal. Somehow the unshakeable belief that a government, or any human institution, can affect the universe to suit the whim of the ignorant is now called conservative. Wasn’t that once called superstition?

Patrick MJD
September 2, 2020 11:12 pm

If you think wat is going on in the state of Victoria, she’s keen as h3ll to implement the same for NSW. If she does, she’s GONE!

September 2, 2020 11:12 pm

Margaret Thatcher tried to use CO2 fears to limit the power of the coal unions who were vary active at that time.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rod
September 2, 2020 11:36 pm

She wanted to demonise coal in favour of nuclear. But coal miners held the country to ransom well before she got to power, remember 3 day weeks due to energy shortages? All before Thatcher.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 3, 2020 12:14 am

Well now we have no coal mining and our last 4 coal power stations have only a couple of years of life left (we ran without coal power for a couple of months over summer)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 12:23 am

You are an idiot!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 12:26 am

I just realised, you were not there at the time!

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 12:28 am

Good think you have so many interconnects from countries with coal or workable hydro, and can still generate nearly half your demand from GAS, isn’t it griff.!

Not to mention trees from the USA.

Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 8:22 am

griff believes that the fact that currently natural gas cheaper than coal is proof that we never needed coal in the first place.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 7:00 am

I’m not a scientist like you griff,but doesn’t RE need back up fossil fuel generation when,you know,it ain’t sunny or windy?Do we need to keep those coal stations as well as gas ?

Reply to  Paul
September 3, 2020 12:53 pm

Does it get dark in Griffworld?
If not, perhaps solar, there, works 24/7; it may need to be backed up by unicorn farts, of course.


September 2, 2020 11:15 pm

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian is a very intelligent woman and has shown herself to be practical and capable of running NSW well. The British Conservative Party would do well to pay attention to her advice. Gladys can tell reality from fantasy, unlike all the Climate Alarmists.

Flight Level
September 2, 2020 11:20 pm

Anyone of those zealots can easily and convincingly experience the effects of zero carbon emission with a very simple and affordable setup. Plastic bag & duct tape required.

Craig from Oz
September 2, 2020 11:25 pm

Arrrr, Gladys.

While some leaders like to adopt the parental image and play the part of a caring mother or father, or even the slightly cheeky aunt or uncle who offers guidance and wisdom while still letting you do the occasional small dodgy behind your parent’s back, Gladys has instead firmly cast herself as the Mother-in-Law of your Ex.

Once a Convict State, always a Convict State. Frankly I would rather eat crow than live with her face on my daily news feed.

September 2, 2020 11:54 pm

At least Thatcher was smart enough to make sure the word “NET” got into the climate action plan.

Now all they have to do is the “NET ZERO”
and not the “REALLY ZERO”.

Reply to  chaamjamal
September 3, 2020 12:25 am

So in a way, it really is the stuff of dreams.

Reply to  chaamjamal
September 3, 2020 12:44 am
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 3, 2020 1:42 am

Sorry not Margaret Thatcher but Theresa May.

Ian Coleman
September 3, 2020 12:01 am

What has become of the British? In days gone by, their idea of improving the world was to invade countries inhabited by primitive heathens, kill them and steal their stuff.

Reply to  Ian Coleman
September 3, 2020 7:53 am

“kill them and steal their stuff”

You really have no idea how an empire works.

What you are describing is the Genghis Khan policy. This was applied by the Mongols to the Han on their invasion of Cathy. The Mongols wanted the best land to pasture their horses and cattle so they put everyone to the sword. This went on until a delegation to the Great Khan suggested that it was a much better policy to live in the Emperor’s palace and let the peasants work in the fields growing rice as they had always done.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 3, 2020 8:51 am

Poor Cathy … Cathay

Reply to  Ian Coleman
September 3, 2020 8:30 am

And amazingly enough, those places colonized by the British have much higher per capita incomes compared to places that weren’t colonized by the British.

old engineer
Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2020 10:12 pm


I remember reading an article in the “Proceeding of Naval Institute” almost 60 years ago, called “The Blessing of Colonialism.” It was about the British colonial system.

The article showed how Britain left the newly independent colony in much better shape than the newly independent colonies of the other European powers. In British colonies, the local army and police may have had British Officers, but they had native noncoms. Likewise the civil service may have British Department Heads, but the clerks and first line supervisors were natives.

Thus when the British pulled out, They left the country with personnel already trained to take over. Of course it didn’t always work out when the trained native group took over, but they were way ahead of other colonies which did not train native personnel.

September 3, 2020 12:40 am

Theresa May, a vicar’s daughter and with a degree in geography, was only ever qualified and experienced for organising and giving lectures the world over on the management of village church fetes.

Our major problems in the UK stem largely from the fact that, except for a few medical professionals, none of our 650 MP’s – let alone government ministers, are experienced or qualified scientic or technological professionals. They are therefore not capable of judging what the most loud mouthed lobbyists and protesters tell them on policies which, increasingly, have a massive scientific and technological content, and neither can they respond with the necessary pertinent questions. As a result, we don’t get the required performance from utilities and other products and services; projects repeatedly run well over budget; too often the projects are years late; too many “unforeseen”, but not unforeseeable, problems occur and inevitably we tax payers get lumbered with delays, disruptions, poor services and massive tax increases.!

As a group our political masters could just about be capable of changing a 13 amp plug fuse, and that’s only because the fuse can be inserted either way round!

Joking aside, its embarrassing to see and hear our representatives talk on virtually any subject which involves science, technology or engineering.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Peter Wilson
September 3, 2020 7:30 am

Incompetent technocrats who are unable to discern their own incompetence?


September 3, 2020 12:46 am

At best this was May’ s desperate last selfish bid to leave a mark (or legacy as the inflated ego elite like to call it) after a weak disastrous leadership. At worst it was a strategic move to make sure the UK could not escape UN global socialist rule in the case it escaped the EU bloc which is its destiny once all national independent governance has been usurped. This after she apparently deliberately botched up Brexit.

And this wasn’t achieved democratically. The 2050 target was an amendment via a statutory instrument, meaning it did not require a vote of MPs.

The Tory party is a disaster, we came from Cameron’s ‘get rid of all the green c**p’ to today, where they seem to use XR as policy/scientific advisers.

September 3, 2020 1:56 am

Bonkers Boris – I stopped supporting the madmad as soon as I saw the crazy conservative climate madness (not a policy – it’s just pie in the sky rubbish). So, I’m lucky, because I can now say I never voted for the madman that caused the economic collapse of the UK over a flu.

What I will find interesting, is that having destroyed the UK economy for flu, having wrecked the public’s faith in crazy models that time and time are proven wrong, but the academics keep pushing them despite their appalling record. Will the public yet again accept an order of magnitude more destruction to the UK, based on very much the same failed academic models?

If the public in June -when we saw Sweden peaking without a lockup – had rejected the coronaphobia, then I would have said that it would be impossible to push the climatephobia. But now it is September, with next to no deaths in Sweden or the UK, for all practical purposes we have got herd immunity, yet still the sheeple are buying into this insane coronaphobia and wearing masks and giving up basic human rights, so I’m beginning to think the sheeple really are that stupid.

So, now I’m beginning to think, it may be time to leave the UK to stew in its own hysteria and find somewhere free of this madness. Any suggestions?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
September 3, 2020 4:27 am

You have your work cut out these days, finding a sane safe country that is not pushing the Green agenda via its institutions.
When you find said place, let us all know, because we will be following your lead as soon as we can.
Boris the UK’s prime minister, has a woke partner that is a self confessed left winger.
He is literally sleeping with the enemy!!

Climate believer
September 3, 2020 5:47 am

To reach this mythical wonderland called “net zero”, they will have to do it with Carbon Credits, even though they deny this.

Carbon credits are essentially an exercise in “guilt” reduction, and virtue signalling, with about as much credibility as the idiots that came up with the idea.

Kyoto protocol’s carbon credit scheme doesn’t work and has been criticised for actually increasing emissions by 600 million tonnes.

That’s like adding 12 California’s , with its oil and gas industry emitting about 50 million metric tons of CO₂ a year. Way to go Kyoto! awesome dude….

The UN’s carbon trading scheme (scam) is also totally corrupt and being run by organised crime in Russia and Ukraine.

In Europe between 2008 and 2009, a Marseille based gang, lead by a woman (ex maths teacher, I kid you not) swindled 1.6 billion euros in a huge carbon quota market scam dubbed the “fraud of the century” at the time.

…… I know, it’s all so dreamy….

Curious George
September 3, 2020 7:43 am

To talk about weather used to be a polite British conversation. How times change!

September 3, 2020 8:03 am

Net Zero is a political concept. It has nothing to do with engineering or reality.
It does not exist in the real world.

September 3, 2020 10:13 am

The EU’s two leading economies, France and Germany, have this week drastically beefed up their green recovery plans, earmarking billions of Euros for a new wave of green infrastructure projects and emissions reduction programmes.’

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2020 12:19 pm

No accounting for green stupidity, is there griff.

A disease FAR WORSE than any Corona virus. !

Climate believer
Reply to  fred250
September 3, 2020 1:45 pm

Sadly people believe in these ridiculous headlines because it reinforces their own belief systems. The truth is, if only they’d scratch the surface a bit and understand that it’s all smoke and mirrors, they might begin to see how they are being led up the garden path………again.

Reply to  fred250
September 4, 2020 4:00 am

They do it because it is necessary and because it works.

UK, France, Germany – large western democracies – all pushing hard on renewables and fighting climate change – no downside seen so far.

How long can you keep saying it doesn’t work/the grid will collpase/they can’t afford it? I’ve been reading that since 2008 and yet, there they still are, still doing it

September 3, 2020 2:07 pm

Ironically as in England these are the choices CINOs ( conservatives in name only) or the left. In fact in many instances the left is starting to look more attractive. This is particularly the case at State level and unfortunately as shown by our response to the pandemic and the operation of our power grid the States control our lives and the Federal government is powerless.

September 3, 2020 2:10 pm

I think Gladys has confused the concept of dreams and nightmares.

Dennis G Sandberg
September 3, 2020 6:01 pm

ColMosby, Proposing molten salt reactors as the energy answer is a distraction, no better than the current effort to replace “fossil fuels” with sunshine and breezes.
Surely no serious student of MSR technology would suggest first commercial operation prior to 2035. Accelerated testing methods of the corrosion resistant materials required will not satisfy regulators much less investors. Such testing over a 5 or more likely 10 year period may find the “best” materials but the “best” materials need to last 40 years to be commercial.
Realistically, the only hope we have for phasing in nuclear technology from 2030-2050 is NuScale’ small scale modular reactors. Don’t doubt it (IMHO).
TerraPower will run tests with depleted uranium, which is not used in fission, to determine which materials can hold molten salt without being damaged by corrosion.
Note: “determine which materials can hold molten salt”. Good luck with that. There isn’t such a material. Maybe someday.
Hastelloy N has not been qualified for use in nuclear construction, and significant additional characterization would be required for Code qualification. …
… It is recommended that a systematic development program be initiated to develop new nickel alloys that contain a fine, stable dispersion of intermetallic particles to trap helium at the interface between the matrix and particle, and with increased solid-solution strengthening from addition of refractory elements.
With support from computational materials science tools, a speculative time frame for a down-selection program, using 20-30 kg heats, is about four to five years….

Julian Flood
September 3, 2020 10:10 pm

I have a post – well, two actually – up at Independence Daily about how doing anything other than going for cheap energy will exacerbate the depression caused by Cv19.

Re molten sal reactors. Maybe they will be the long-term answer, but we need quick results.
Nuke submarine engine tech is quite good enough to be going on with for SMRs. Rolls Royce is prototyping.


Geoff Sherrington
September 3, 2020 11:35 pm

One day an enterprising student of history might publish research into the part played by women in the growth and development of the green movement.
Time and again, we read of people like Boris the Brit PM who would like a different course but is swayed by intercourse or a lack thereof. It is not uncommon to find examples of the old saying that behind every good man you find a dreamin’ green woman. I am full of respect for the female, but we have to accept that their makeup is not the hunter/gatherer style of the alpha male, but more often some chemically treated mud from a cosmetic tube. There is no reason to assume that increasing the proportion of the female in decisions like the best way to generate electricity in a nation will be a benefit, especially from the male perspective that an increase in female proportion is limited to a few defined shapes and has little to do with being kept in a kitchen.
One has to be careful these days, to use appropriate words to gain the title of sexist, but for Gawd’s sake, please keep the fairer sex well away from unemotional decisions like choice of national power supplies. Their past performance is dismal and cannot be improved, as can a male’s, by Viagra. Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
September 4, 2020 3:57 am

Entire 20th century passed you by, didn’t it?

(tip: don’t try explaining all that to actual women)

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  griff
September 4, 2020 7:59 pm

The women with whom I mix are educated, intelligent, lovely and nothing like the man-woman hybrids with little style or sex appeal or allure or dress sense, who seem to infest green movements between shaves.
Each one of my lady friends says that men should have control of national electricity generation programs. Historically, this has been their type of duty.
I am sorry that your female friends are in the minority on this. But, when you lack enough of the right hormones, it is easy to be swayed by passing fads. Geoff S

Mickey Reno
September 4, 2020 9:38 am

The image of Theresa May is now like the image of Barack Obama for me. I just hate looking at her, listening to anything she says, thinking about her. She is NOT a conservative. She’s a somewhat moderate Socialist, further left than any scientist previously thought. I will never accept anything from her as representative of conservatism, although I will concede that the definition of “conservative” is a bit problematic these days. One of the things conservatism is not, is the mob, as defined like people like Guardian readers, BBC sheeple, and the likes of Griff and Loydo, controlling the electricity grid.

The problem with leftists and Socialists is their desire for free and clean power (to the degree that they are not really secret psychopathic haters of human thriving, who want the grid to be destroyed), leads them to the same Unicorn fart theories of electrical generation as leads them to Utopian thinking about economics. This is WHY you get horrors like the Holodomor, gualgs, Final Solutions, Maoist Cultural Revolutions, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, and why you get leaders like Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin.

Just because we want something very badly enough, does not automatically make it true. People still have to do the work, build, think, create the new innovations, invest, take risks. Using government coercion cannot make Utopia come true. And while I’m on this topic, that also goes for you fools who keep pretending that nuclear fusion or small, modular molten salt reactors are mere formalities away from becoming reality. Nothing would make me happier if it were true, BUT IT’S NOT, so give it a frickin’ rest. If you want a molten salt thorium reactor or a plentiful water powered fusion reactor, enroll in a chemistry or materials program and start learning how to battle corrosion or to contain a fusion reaction. In the mean time, I will not be holding my breath, nor will I be persuaded that you have any claim on futurist politics, future discount rates, or Utopia in general.

There is NO FREE LUNCH! The free lunch is an illusion. So stuff your Utopia up your Karl Marxhole.

Verified by MonsterInsights