GWPF calls for urgent inquiry into rising blackout risk, threatening national security

From the Global Warming Policy Foundation

Date: 06/11/20

Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Britain faces an energy emergency as lack of wind exposes tottering electricity system, rescued by coal

London, 6 November: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today calling on MPs to start an urgent inquiry into the economic and national security implications of the growing fragility of the UK electricity system.

For two days running, (4th and 5th November), National Grid, UK’s Electricity System Operator has issued System Warnings in the form of an Electricity Margin Notice, alerting the markets to a reduced system margin. In large part this is due to low levels of wind power as a result of a very large high pressure system that covers the whole of the UK, bringing the first frosts of the winter.

At peak load on the 4th of November the UK’s entire transmission connected wind fleet of 18,000 MW in capacity was providing a mere 17% of its possible output (3,000 MW).

The last of the UK’s remaining coal plants stepped in and provided over 2,264 MW of generation, alongside other conventional forms of generation. For a government that claims to be “Powering Past Coal” this is deeply embarrassing.

The UK’s electricity sector is now so fragile that a normal weather event causes it to wilt like a hothouse plant left out in the frost, and the prospects for the future are deeply troubling.

Much of the conventional capacity that has been stabilising the system in the last two days, particularly coal, is scheduled for rapid closure in the drive towards Net Zero. This hasty policy has long looked overambitious, it now appears dangerous as well as ruinously expensive.

The government has become a hostage to renewables industry lobbyists, inside and outside Westminster, and will not spontaneously initiate an inquiry into the threat to energy and national security or admit failure. The GWPF is calling for MPs to initiate their own investigation of the perilous state of the United Kingdom’s electricity system.

Full article here.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 8, 2020 10:24 pm

We desperately need an event like this to occur. When it happens, when people learn that that the AGW religion will lead them to live in the dark, without transport, without hospitals, without internet – then maybe people will wake up.

Bryan A
Reply to  ggm
November 8, 2020 11:22 pm

But…but…but…Germany is right next door, how can they produce 50% of their electricity requirements with renewables while U.K. can’t figure it out???
I guess it really Blows to be in Germany

Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 1:40 am

A quote from GTM:
Germany’s Maxed-Out Grid Is Causing Trouble Across Europe
Although Germany is generating record amounts of clean energy in the north, its grid is too weak to transport all the power down to load centers in the south — a longstanding challenge for the country that is only getting worse.

One of the most visible effects of this renewable energy saturation on the German grid is negative wholesale electricity prices, times when consumers are effectively being paid to use excess power.

As favorable weather conditions pushed renewable energy up to almost 43 percent of the power supply mix in 2019, “there was an increase in the number of hours with negative prices due to high generation from renewables,” according to Agora Energiewende, a German think tank.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 1:56 am

This…. from 2013
“Last week Germany’s wind and solar power production was consistently near to non-existent. More than 23,000 German wind turbines stood still for days. One million photovoltaic systems, subsidized by consumers to the tune of with 108 billion euros, stopped work nearly complete and delivered a few kilowatt hours only very briefly during lunch. For the whole week unloved coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply.
For the new Economic and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Social Democratic Party, SPD) the unreliable contribution of renewable energy presents a dilemma: on the one hand, he may not want to be seen to slow down the green energy transition (Energiewende).
On the other hand, it will not add anything to the German power supply if the green power expansion continues and when in the future 40,000 instead of the current 23,000 wind turbines stand still in the doldrums – or when two million instead of one million solar panels do not generate any electricity during the long winter darkness.”
from the link:-

George Tetley
Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 2:48 am

Ssssh,. Don’t look now. But living in Germany and sometimes in the dark ssssh. Top secret

Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 3:04 am

we can see that at the moment of writing, the Old Reliables Gas and Nuclear are providing 71% of the total demand, the New Unreliables (wind, biomas & solar) about 13% and the rest coal, hydro and imports. These ratios might change during the rest of the day.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Vuk
November 9, 2020 3:55 am

What suggests to you that biomass is unreliable?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 4:54 am

The UK’s biofuel originates from the industrial scale deforestation in the Southern states of the USA and is transported all the way across Atlantic. It is more polluting than coal and more expensive than nuclear, and when the reason prevails it will be the end of it, hopefully sooner than later.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 5:19 am

Vuk says, “It is more polluting than coal and more expensive than nuclear” and I say that’s bullshit. Also, biomass allows for superior forest management.

What the “****” makes you think it’s deforestation? Much comes from thinning- and even if it’s from clear cutting, it’s from proper silvicultural clear cutting- to regenerate the stand. You’ve been reading too much green bullshit. Try talking to foresters who understand the subject.

And, what you say has nothing to do with reliability- even if true, which it isn’t.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 6:01 am

Mr. Zorzin, no need to get hot under collar.
There is a doubt that wood pellets can meet the new standard of 29 kg CO2/MWh
Just one unit ash discharge rate: 120-300 m3/hr, depending on the load.
Nuclear and gas are far superior on all counts.
As a professional forester you may have found a useful source of additional income in providing wood-chips to be shipped to the UK.
My electricity bill subsidies the wood chip pellets businesses all the way from your forest to the Didcot power station that feeds the UK’s national greed

Ian W
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 6:56 am

@Joseph Zorzin

Antony Barnett, reporter at Dispatches, travelled to the southern states of the USA to investigate the source of wood that is now being turned into millions of tonnes of wood pellets to be burnt in Britain’s largest power station, Drax, in North Yorkshire.

Footage reveals huge areas of hardwood forest in the state of Virginia being chopped down and removed to a factory owned by US firm Enviva that grinds up logs into pellets. A large proportion of these pellets are then shipped across the Atlantic to be burnt at Drax in the UK – one of Enviva’s main customers.

Britain has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 57 percent by 2030 and getting Drax to switch from burning coal to wood is meant to play an important part in that. Drax now produces up to 17 percent of Britain’s ‘renewable’ electricity, enough to power four million homes.

The power station giant claims that burning pellets instead of coal reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 percent.
However, Dispatches conducted a simple experiment at a laboratory at the University of Nottingham to compare the carbon dioxide emitted when burning wood pellets, similar to those used by Drax, instead of coal.
It found that to burn an amount of wood pellets that would generate the same amount of electricity as coal it would actually produce roughly eight percent more carbon.

Note that clearcutting of forests is just for DRAX.

Perhaps the reduce CO2 output at all costs greens need to talk to plant a tree to save the world greens. Currently, the DRAX system is responsible for more CO2 emissions (and they are not counting the CO2 from the burned wood!) and is also destroying trees faster than greens can plant them. That would seem to be an indefensible position.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 8:10 am

“Joseph Zorzin November 9, 2020 at 5:19 am
Vuk says, “It is more polluting than coal and more expensive than nuclear” and I say that’s bullshit. Also, biomass allows for superior forest management.

What the “****” makes you think it’s deforestation? Much comes from thinning- and even if it’s from clear cutting, it’s from proper silvicultural clear cutting- to regenerate the stand. You’ve been reading too much green bullshit. Try talking to foresters who understand the subject.

And, what you say has nothing to do with reliability- even if true, which it isn’t.”

In simple words, you are totally clueless about how trees are harvested for lumber, paper or pellets.

Large machines are used that cut the trees. They do not allow the tree to fall, cut trees are stripped of their bark and stacked.
These machines do not sneak into the woods leaving the forest undamaged. They essentially bulldoze everything in their path to reach trees.

It is only economical if all harvestable trees are cut at the same time!

Leaving seed tree(s) usually means leaving the trees that are located in an inconvenient for access location(s), not because they are prime specimens. Tree planting equipment replants the area.

Afterwards, the trees may be sorted before processing; lumber, telephone poles, chipped for architectural lumber, briquet manufacture, pellets or paper.

There no “thinning” of the forest involved in the lumber business, which includes making pellets!

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 9:27 am

Not unreliable just unsustainable. Biomass requires logging and processing of the Carbon sink, releasing the CO2 from Hundreds of years of growth daily. Often times imported biomass further extending the required carbon footprint

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 9:37 am

@ Joseph Zorzin
People living near wood pellet manufacturing facilities report air quality so low that it irritates asthma, burns their eyes, and makes simple outdoor activities like gardening impossible – all of which does nothing for area property values.
It’s obvious that these industries damage both the health as well as the economic and environmental sustainability of communities across the South.
Polluting industries invariably build their plants in rural communities with low income. Residents are hungry for promised jobs. Local policy makers are happy to accommodate corporations that say they’ll create what often turn out to be very few long term jobs.

Reply to  Vuk
November 9, 2020 3:59 am

Nice clear graphic, constant monitoring here:-

Ethan Brand
Reply to  Greyleader2
November 9, 2020 12:31 pm

Thank you. The link provides all one really needs to know about solar/wind. All else is fantasy.
Ethan Brand

Reply to  ggm
November 9, 2020 3:57 am

What? No one has any of those old-fashioned thingies like oil lamps and parlor stoves? Oh, well. They were warned, weren’t they?

Welcome to the late 18th century, UK. Somebody needs to sue the Greenbeaners’ silly hindquarters right into the ground.


So far, I still live in a civilized society.

Reply to  ggm
November 9, 2020 4:23 am

Hey! Not to worry, Biden will take care of it.
It was reported yesterday that part of the “slew” of EOs he’ll sign on the first day is to re-impose the Paris Climate Accord.
Enjoy heating, electricity and traveling before Jan 21, 2021. While you can.

Reply to  cedarhill
November 9, 2020 10:52 am

Note from your third party seller in China on the Amazon platform: Your order for FunnyPower Hi Capacity backup generator has been delayed to 2025.

Reply to  ggm
November 9, 2020 9:35 am

Aren’t we constantly being told by a couple of regulars here that this isn’t a problem? Everything is fine, renewables are doing great, right?

November 8, 2020 10:31 pm

Sometimes, the only way to learn, is from mistakes. Just a real pity that it will affect so many people, especially in winter. But this type of learning will really stick in the minds of people and they won’t want to make this mistake too many times, especially in the dead of winter and the Euro connectors go off for other trade issues as the threats mount. A hard rain/snow is about to fall and the grid can’t keep up. Just in time misery brought to you by idealists, leftists and thieves.

November 8, 2020 10:37 pm

Financial Times, Aug 9, 2019- “ Power Outage hits large Parts of England and Wales”.
After a large part of England and Wales suffered a major power outage, reportedly through the loss of two generators connected to the National Grid, one source at a local energy network said, “I’ve never heard of anything like this in twenty years”.
The excuses are going to wear very thin the next time round.

November 8, 2020 10:56 pm

They forgot to notify the high pressure system, silly rubes!

November 8, 2020 11:26 pm

Wind only producing at 17% of what floggers said it could is likely a pathetic eye opening to many. Bet terms of turbine sales was no returns accepted.

November 9, 2020 12:02 am

This is absolutely standard practice and the UK sees almost zero grid outages – the only one we have had in a decade was caused by failure of a fossil fuel plant.

I am distressed to see Watts now posting alarmist articles

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:18 am

Sorry Griff, that won’t wash. the National Grid has a very clear statement and infographic on its website explaining what happened. It can be summarised as:

1. Lighting Strike
2. Small loss of embedded (generally wind, solar) generation (500 MW loss)
3. Virtually simultaneous loss of Little Barford gas power station and Hornsea windfarm (1,378 MW loss)

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:34 am

The outage that occurred the other year was due to both a wind farm and a fossil fuelled power plant. IIRC there was a frequency mismatch problem that triggered the outage, I think this occurred at the wind farm, but I may be mistaken.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:55 am

“griff November 9, 2020 at 12:02 am”

I guess you never lived through the 60’s and 70’s where power workers when on strike because the toast fell to the ground butter side down. Of course you would not remember the 70’s and 80’s where Thatcher did her best and Scargill tried his best to destroy the UK’s energy supply.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 9, 2020 2:09 am

Just a point of accuracy. To the best of my nowledge, UK power workers have never held a national strike. It was Scargill who called the miners out on strike and they who picketed power stations to prevent coal and other essentials deliveries. Many power workers crossed those picket lines to keep the lights on. Not a happy time. Thereafter, Thatcher’s government decreed that power stations would hold at least 6 months of coal, oil, gas etc to prevent a recurrence.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greyleader2
November 9, 2020 9:38 am

I’d love to see them decree similarly for Wind and Solar.
Wind and Solar generators must retain a 6 month supply of fuel on site for emergency purposes (battery back-up)

Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 10:29 am

All you need are lots and lots of batteries, plus some fans or LED lights. Problem solved.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 1:09 pm

And a googolplex of Honda Pull-starts to run the sun lamps overnight

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
November 9, 2020 1:10 pm

Something has to keep those solar panels pumping out juice

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 9, 2020 2:41 am

I remember the bizarre sight from the Royal Docks, of all the ships lit up and London blacked out for miles around except for the odd building with backup generators. Surplus torches were going for high prices down the Edgeware road.

Pariah Dog
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:56 am

Standard practice for fossil fuels to step in and fill the gap when wind and solar can’t? Fine. And what do you propose we do when your watermelon comrades succeed in shutting down the last coal plant? Build more windmills?

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 1:30 am

So Griff, Gridwatch currently shows (09:23 am UK):

Wind 6.37%
Solar 0.00 %
Biomass 5.7 %
Gas 54.15 %
Coal 1.82%
Nuclear17.59 %
Connectors 11.39%

Pumped storage is also running and the frequency is below 50 Hz, meaning we need a bit more for the morning peak demand. The weather is mild.

So your precious renewables are generating 12.07% of total demand.
Fossil fuels are generating 55.97%
Nuclear and interconnectors are generating 28.98 %

Note that the main interconnector is France – which is also generating 12% from Gas and wind is only at 3.85% of French supply. 80% of that French supply is coming from nuclear.

Think you can run a National Grid from 6% ind and no solar?

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 9, 2020 3:31 am

Griff does not think. Feelz is bestest.

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 2:41 am

Griff. There were two power blackouts where I live in Scotland on Sunday 25th October.

“…the only one we have had in a decade was caused by failure of a fossil fuel plant.”
It wasn’t.

“The problems began when lightning struck a power line just before the Friday rush-hour. This sounds dramatic, but it happens thousands of times a year. Circuit breakers automatically disconnected the line in less than a tenth of a second to isolate the current surge from the lightning bolt. About 20 seconds later they reconnected the line, and normally this would have been the end of the story.

The large wind farm at Hornsea (100 km out in the North Sea) disconnected itself from the grid 0.3 seconds after the lightning strike. It detected a voltage disturbance when the power line was disconnected, and attempted to help correct it by injecting ‘reactive power’. Something went wrong and two banks of wind turbines disconnected to protect themselves.1 737 MW of generation was lost.

Within half a second of the lightning strike, a steam-turbine shut down at Little Barford gas power station, which is connected to the affected power line. The turbine had reacted to abnormal speed readings, which were probably not true because the control systems were disrupted when its power supply switched over to battery back-up.1 This is unusual, and looks like an equipment failure of some kind. A further 244 MW of generation was lost.”

Reply to  Phaedo
November 9, 2020 3:55 am

The trip was caused by incorrect settings at Little Barford and Hornsea. Barford had 3 trips and it was the final one that caused the grid failure (before this the grid was recovering).
comment image

National grid report

Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 4:23 am

Hey it’s Ghalfrunt who told people to drink bleach….shame on you.

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 3:29 am

🤣. One of your better bits of lunacy.

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 4:00 am

BS, griff. IT is NOT standard practice and you are kidding yourself to say that this is “standard”. I hope you enjoy living in a cold, dark place.

Reply to  Sara
November 9, 2020 12:49 pm

” I hope you enjoy living in a cold, dark place.”

griff is trapped in his own little mind-world.

It is a cold dark EMPTY place….. unable to support cognisant life.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 4:18 am

“…almost zero outages”

Let that sink in. LOL.
Griff, are you really that dumb?

November 9, 2020 12:03 am

by the way, who funds the GWPF?

since they choose to keep it secret, can we be sure these pronouncements it makes aren’t intended to serve some commercial interest?

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:18 am

Griff plays the man, not the ball.

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
November 9, 2020 2:02 am

griff flops its limp wrist in their general direction.!

so tragic !

Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2020 5:11 pm

And what will charge all those electric cars they are all telling us we are gonna need after 2026?
Anyone want to buy the new ELECTRIC BENTLEY now??

Iain Reid
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:23 am


you really do not understand.
The grid, in more sensible times, can and did withstand failures of generation due to the inertia of the generators that made up the system maintaining frequency within operable limits. The time of that trip was a period of high wind input to the grid and consequent low inertia. Hornsea wind farm also tripped and I forget which was first.
I trust some lessons have been learned from that event but I don’t believe that we have seen the last of them and I do expect more in the future.

“The GWPF is funded overwhelmingly by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.2

You will probably say that is a lie but why should you expect them to copy what the ENGOs do as a matter of course?

Incidentally I am a contributor to the GWPF, in a very small way, comensurate with my meage means because with a lifetime of electrical engineering experience I know that their opinion on renewables and grid operation are accurate and we need a voice of reason, even if politicians, in general, are deaf.

Reply to  Iain Reid
November 9, 2020 4:55 am

Start of problem 16:52:33.490 substation trip

Hornsea trip 16:52:33.835 737MW
Little Barford st trip 16:52:34 244MW
Little Barford gt1a trip 16:53:31 210MW – the final nail?
little Barford gt1b trip 16:53:58 187MW

Hornsea and Barford admit setting errors

From the final report:
The ESO was keeping automatic “backup” power (response) at that time to cater for the loss of the
largest infeed at 1,000MW – the level required under the regulatory approved Security and Quality of
Supply Standards (SQSS).
However, the total generation lost from vector shift protection, the two transmission connected
generators and subsequently rate of change of frequency protection was 1,481MW and as such was
above what was secured for under the SQSS. This meant that the frequency fell very quickly and
went outside the normal range of 50.5Hz – 49.5Hz to a level of 49.1Hz.
All the “backup” power and tools the ESO normally uses and had available to manage the frequency
were used (this included 472MW of battery storage) to stop the frequency fall (at 49.1Hz) and being
recovering it towards 50Hz.
However, just as the frequency began to recover (and reach 49.2Hz) there was a further trip of a
Gas Turbine at 210MW at Little Barford Power Station (due to high pressure in the steam bypass
system following the failure of a bypass valve to operate correctly). This made the cumulative loss of
generation 1,691MW.
All of the available “backup” power had already been deployed and the cumulative scale of
generation loss meant that the frequency then fell to a level (48.8Hz) where secondary backup
systems acted automatically to disconnect approximately 5% of demand (the Low Frequency
Demand Disconnection, LFDD, scheme). This enabled the recovery of the frequency and ensured
the safety and integrity of the network. (Note that following the LFDD schemes being triggered, the
second gas turbine at Little Barford tripped at 187MW meaning the total loss of generation was

Much of the public outrage was due to trains being stranded. this was in part due to problems restarting the electrics

Immediate consequences
There were a number of very significant consequences from these events, the most significant of which include:
• 1.1 million electricity customers were without power for between 15 and 50 minutes.
• A number of a particular class of trains operating in the South-East area were unable to stay operational throughout the event and, in a number of cases, required an engineer to be sent out to the individual train. This was likely a significant factor in the travel disruption on the rail network.
• Some other critical facilities were affected including Ipswich hospital (lost power due to the operation of their own protection systems) and Newcastle airport (disconnected by the Low Frequency Demand Disconnection scheme).

Ian W
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 7:06 am

A quick summary.
The National Grid has little redundancy and the loss of a windfarm and conventional generation plant caused a nationwide cascade of failures. Some of these due to poorly designed safety subsystems causing the cascade of protective failures.
The intention is to move to a position of even less redundancy in National Grid supplies.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 8:57 am

Odd rephrasing of the sequences of failures and cause.

“There is a broader question around the move to higher shares of renewable generation. Wind and solar farms do not have heavy spinning metal turbines which provide ‘inertia’, the shock-absorbers of the power system. As we move to less conventional generation, the power system is seeing higher rates of change of frequency. This is giving National Grid less time to react to problems on the system.

On August 9th, the frequency drop was the fastest we have ever experienced, peaking at about 0.16 Hz per second. The sustained rate of change meant National Grid had less than 10 seconds to react before frequency had fallen outside of normal operating limits (below 49.5 Hz).

This ‘speeding up’ is a direct result of more wind, solar and sub-sea interconnectors. However, it is being counterbalanced by new technologies that provide response and reserve services. Nearly half of National Grid’s response came from batteries, which were exceptionally fast to reach full power. The traditional spinning generators, which would have been the only recourse a decade ago, took much longer to respond.”

As Iain Reid November 9, 2020 at 12:23 am, states above; when the electricity generating facilities had large generators spinning, that very action protected against frequency and power fluctuations while keeping the grid supplied.
Replace those solid systems generating inexpensive energy and the entire grid is far less stable.

Next, you’ll tell us why the renewable energy experts failed to identify and define what changes were needed to better cope with variable unstable electricity producers?
Surely, those wizards of renewable energy tested renewable energy impacts to the grid?

Fault and failures with wind farm took down the grid, causing blackout. A blackout kept limited by quick actions of the grid operators.

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:31 am

I note that as usual the Left reverts to add hominem attack. Is Griff claiming that the National Grid is bribed by the fossil fuels industry?

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 12:47 am

If you look at on the GWPF’s web site, you will see the statement:

The Global Warming Policy Forum is funded by private donations. In order to make clear their complete independence, neither the Foundation nor the Forum accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

(Please remind yourself of the laws on slander and libel, should you wish to make any disparaging comment on the organization’s funding).

Reply to  OldCynic
November 9, 2020 2:10 am

griff couldn’t care less about honesty, slander or libel.

He still owes Susan Crockford an apology …

but doesn’t have the GUTS, DECENCY or HONESTY to do it.

Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2020 3:32 am

Griff does not do decency.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  OldCynic
November 9, 2020 2:19 am

Old Cynic

Thanks for coming to the defense of the GWPF. I have found their lectures scrupulous, sober and sensible. I cannot say the same about their slanderous and scornful critics.

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 2:01 am

No accounting for the IGNORANCE of griff

ALWAYS there..

… ALWAYS on full display !

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 2:12 am

And you really believe that invalidates their assertions?

Tell us how you feel after spending 3 hours in a dark lift stuck between floors.

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 2:47 am

by the way, who funds the GWPF?

You have to laugh at that when griff’s favourite tabloid – The Grauniad – was founded in 1821 by John Edward Taylor using profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves.

Griff should be calling for its closure, but he won’t.

Maybe he can explain why

Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 3:30 am

“… intended to serve some commercial interest?”

Power generation is a commercial activity. Your argument is idiotic.
What’s more, you have, on a number of occasions, stated the the problem with nuclear power is that it can’t make money. So you accept that commercial interest is required in power generation.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  griff
November 9, 2020 11:18 am

I have donated to the GWPF, and before the old Bishop Hill blog went mostly inactive, I contributed to it, as well.

Nowadays, I contribute to WattsUpWithThat via the donate button (upper right, please join me) to, to Mark Steyn ( no tip jar, but I buy a book occasionally),, Peter Ridd lawsuit support via GoFundMe, and a few other web sites and news aggregators that operate on memberships or donations. A lot of my giving these days is to individual servers who work at the restaurants and bars I frequent, to keep their spirits and income levels up, to the extent I can. Tipping at the 100-150% level is common in my favorite diner and bar, where the staff hours have been cut back due to Covid rules, ergo less opportunity for tips. I’ve even begun tipping the back kitchen staff, dishwashers and bus boys and girls, who have to wash the dirty dishes I’ve made, and who sanitize the bathrooms and mop the floors, etc.

One thing I do for fun is to click the donate page on the Graun’s web site when I go there to read some of the stupid shite they publish, then click the max donation button, then kill the whole page, in case they count those clicks.

If all their authors and contributors were equal to Victor Davis Hanson, Andy McCarthy, Jack Fowler and the Radio Free California podcast duo of Will Swaim and David Bahnson, I would donate to National Review online, too, but there were just too many damn “neverTrumpers” there for me to give to them.

Who do you donate to, Griff?

M Seward
November 9, 2020 12:04 am

Dwight Eisenhower warned of a ‘military-industrial complex’ forming and distorting public policy post WW2, I imagine not wanting to let go of the rivers of profits, power and influence that the conflict had delivered. The irony is that Eisenhower himself was a product of that effect.
What we now have ais another perfect storm of self interest with a politically radical movement (the ‘greens’) joining up with the anti western fringe of mainstream politics then connecting with similar minds in science where objectivity takes a distant second and then in come the merchant bankers and the politicians are just frozen in the headlights, their lack of technical understanding rendering them deaf, dumb, blund and mute to effectively respond.

Reply to  M Seward
November 9, 2020 1:00 am

“What we now have…”

Is a continuation. Eisenhower’s “complex” is the very same old vested interest resisting the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 7:32 am

Loydo, do you ever test your assumptions with average, everyday people? As an “average, everyday” person myself, I can tell you that I would love to see CO2 emissions brought as low as possible. I think most people do. I also think energy providers are in the same boat. They would like to cut emissions down but because of the stranglehold of regulations, options are limited. I would like to see a large growth in cutting edge nuclear and hydropower generation, but because of other “vested interests”, which collectively I will refer to as “the green movement”, said solutions cannot be had. So what we are left with is pressure from “the green movement” to “green” our power grid but the solution pathway is highly constrained. Wind and solar are to nuclear and hydro as horse-and-buggy is to the automobile.

Reply to  leowaj
November 9, 2020 8:13 pm

Why would you “love to see C02 emissions brought as low as possible”?? What would be the point? It has surely been established at least on this site that they are not responsible for the 1.5º increase in global temperatures in the past 100 years but have contributed to a significant increase in crop production. So, to cut C02 would hardly benefit mankind.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 8:13 am

Loydo says:

“..Is a continuation. Eisenhower’s “complex” is the very same old vested interest resisting the reduction of CO2 emissions…”

Loydo, why do you and so many other climate alarmists persistently and totally ignore the logarithmic saturation effect of CO2 on temperatures as though the effect doesn’t exist?

“…[T]he logarithmic diminution graph shows that a doubling of CO2 from 410ppmv to 820ppmv should result in a temperature increase of about +0.35°C, because the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation: this calculation takes no account of feedbacks, which are undeterminable

[A] rise of +0.35°C would be so marginal as to be undetectable within the noise of Global temperature measurements..”

The effect has been known going all the way back to the early 1970s and this piece by none other than Steven Schneider…

“..It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…”

So the issue Loydo is how much any additions of CO2 to the atmosphere are going to contribute to any meaningful change or rise in temperature that we need to concern ourselves with.

If you are going to continually troll this website, please have the courtesy and common sense to understand what the issue is with GHGs…… and to use sound science to make an argument. You and Griff seem to have a difficult time doing that.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 9, 2020 12:33 pm

I ignore it because it is a red herring.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 3:01 pm

“…Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming…”

If you have science that shows CO2 and other GHGs are not at or near their saturation point and will produce additional warming, please produce it.

This is no red herring, but an attempt on your part to dismiss what is too painful for you to accept. Who is the real denier here?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 4:34 pm

… and one other thing.

Picking the term “red herring” apparently entitles you to selectively cherry-pick what science you choose to believe and accept on one hand. One the other hand, it also entitles you to ignore the science that does not fit in with the CAGW theory you have chosen to embrace.

Labelling science that you don’t like in such a manner is hardly the basis for any argument at all. How convenient that you can do it anyway.

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 9:03 pm

The saturation argument is loved in places like this but IS a red herring. It isn’t as simple as you might think but Clive Best does a fair job of explaining why here.

Also look here

and here

“Until the effective radiative level is above the tropopause, adding more CO2 slows the emission to space and thus the surface has to warm in response.

Reply to  M Seward
November 9, 2020 8:28 am

What we have now is a full scale Green Reset driven by the Davos crowd, beyond anything imagined by Eisenhower, who was by the way a product of war-fighting the very same fas-cism that these green bankers want to now install in the US and everywhere. Biden is their (holographic) man.

Curious how Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted the holograph meme, something without any real substance.

That was exactly the remark made by an author that actually interviewed a then well known candidate at Nuremberg – he had actually no personality.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bonbon
November 9, 2020 12:47 pm

What Griff, et al don’t realize is that they are being educated and driven onward by wealthy elites in order to achieve the “Green Reset.” These people aren’t doing this for altruism, they are doing it for money. Money as defined by replacing existing generation that only provides cents on the dollar profit with entirely new generation requiring totally new capital extracted from the proletariat. That’s where the big money is.

Greens don’t know or care how many people die or are forced into poverty because “the ends justifies the means”. They have been inculcated into this concept from Paul Erlich on and are unable to acknowledge that they have been equipped with mental blinders to the results of their actions.

Julian Flood
November 9, 2020 12:06 am

All intermittent generators should be forced to guarantee a certain capacity factor,and it should be well more than 90%. This would ensure they could not parasitise on more reliable forms of generation.

There’s a turbine in Swaffham that has readouts at the base of energy produced. It’s capacity factor is, IIRC, 23%. If they had to guarantee delivery they would find it more profitable to buils a CCGT plant and ditch the windmill.


November 9, 2020 12:08 am

I have fantasies of Griff getting stuck in a lift during a blackout caused by the “Green” energy policies he promotes.

George Tetley
Reply to  Graemethecat
November 9, 2020 3:02 am

How about GRIFf driving his electric car in the middle of nowhere and finding out that the tow company has only electric vehicles.

November 9, 2020 12:15 am

“Much of the conventional capacity… is scheduled for rapid closure in the drive towards Net Zero. This hasty policy…

80% reduction by 2050 is not really hasty. This mob might have a little more credibility is they stopped hiding who their donors are. Vested interests lets call them.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 1:45 am

Let’s just say that President Donald Trump himself was secretly running GWPF – so what?

Du you always judge a book by it’s cover? – You shouldn’t.
“80% reduction by 2050 is not really hasty”? – If this is plant food contribution you are talking about, try nuclear, pedal power or move to Africa. Not everyone in the UK want to live in dark caves with no hot meals.

The point is that there is a very basic rule, namely that energy is less resource volume demanding the larger the entropy difference is.
Said in another way: The average wind kinetic energy has an extremely low energy flux density, compare to nuclear and even fossil fuels, thus wind turbines occupies insanely larger areas of our environment than nearly any other energy source and wind turbines disturb the environment needlessly in so many ways and demands a horrible amount of energy, infrastructure, grid extensions and 100% conventional synchronous backup and stabilizing generators.

So please tell us where GWPF is wrong.

Sorry if this is hastily and angrily written, it is not Loydo’s fault, it goes back to generations of indoctrination away from rationale and into dreamy, immature ideological thinking.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 9, 2020 2:03 am

With wind and solar currently contributing just 7.5% of UK demand, we would need 14x more wind and solar capacity at the current generating rate to supply the UK. With no margin.

And demand is still relatively low – its mild for November. And most people still heat their homes with gas – if that is switched to electricity even more generation demand.

And then cars switching to EV. Even more generation demand.

Lloydo lives in cloud cuckoo land.

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 2:04 am

“Vested interests lets call them.”

You mean the wind and solar lobbyists, don’t you, of course, loy-dumb

You are not one to talk about credibility…. yours is in the FAR negative. !!

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 2:08 am

Any one of them would have more scientific knowledge in their little finger than you will ever have in your pitiful life-time, loy dumb

You are scientifically illiterate nonce, with a brain the size of a pee.

Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2020 4:27 am

I sometimes think if it were possible to fuse together the minds of Loydo and Griff, you still wouldn’t have the brainpower of an amoeba

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 3:32 am

If you are going to rule out vested interests then the guardian, Greenpeace, WWF and a pile of others milking the Climate Emergency for all the cash they can get are on the list.

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 4:13 am

“Vested interests lets call them.”
We’re discussing the power generation of the UK. Every resident has a ‘Vested interests’.

Reply to  Loydo
November 9, 2020 4:55 am

So Lloydo, explain who the donors to Greenpeace are in the UK. Where does their funding come from?

Is there a list with names on?

Carl Friis-Hansen
November 9, 2020 1:12 am

What is UK complaining about?
Currently wind turbines give them 7% of their electricity.
Wednesday 11th Ireland and the west coast of England and Scotland may get sustained winds up to 30m/s, resulting in many or most wind turbines shutting down.
If the UK population would just pay a bit more tax, the wind would stop behaving so badly.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 9, 2020 1:54 am

Error correction:
My my wind speed numbers were km/h.

However, UK also experience the 30m/s from time to time. From the back of my head, I think most brands shut down by 27m/s and goes into follow mode of shut down below 4m/s

Peta of Newark
November 9, 2020 1:57 am

Carl at 1:12
Not difficult to work it out – I get 66% of UK Gross Salary goes into tax and other mandatory takes.
Biggest of the mandatory takes being pensions.
Folks have now got to pay into a pension, so the Government can then borrow the money (over the longer term) while carefully ‘managing inflation so as to make it worth 50% or less when Gov repays the loan.

That 66% is before ‘luxuries’ such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel/energy/carbon and even the sugar in kiddies soft drinks.
Said sugar tax supposedly being used to build children’s playgrounds – typically of the sort where myself and my 8 yr old female autistic charge were so appallingly attacked just recently

The need to build playgrounds?????
There were 1000’s of playgrounds and playing fields 40 years ago – they’ve nearly all been sold, bulldozed and had houses built upon them – *because* the country was bankrupt even then, *even* with North Sea Oil on tap

Electrickery? – get a load of this.

and weep

Rod Evans
November 9, 2020 3:25 am

Power outages are already with us. Here in the Midlands in England we had one this morning at just after 8.00 am/ We also had one last week in the evening. It always happens when wind is in short supply and the national grid have failed to line up sufficient reliable alternatives to the intermittent renewables they are constantly loading onto the grid.
It will only get worse as the balance between reliable generator capacity is reduced and unreliable is increased.
Sorry griff, that is just the way it is.

November 9, 2020 4:05 am

Shortage of capacity is in part caused by ~2.5GW of nuclear generation being offline. 4 of the 500GW generators have been offline for nearly 2 years
And of course are requiring cooling when not generating using ~30MW of grid power.

A grid person talking electric cars to Top Gear

Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 4:28 am

I can pull in, get petrol and be off in well under 10 minutes with a range of ~350 to 400 miles.

No EV can do that – especially with lights and heater on. And no children were exploited in making my car.

Rod Evans
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 5:16 am

Thanks for the link ghalfrunt, as 81% of UK cars are financed and as over 50% are company purchased, I am thinking the spokesman from the National Grid, paid to promote electricity usage, was one of the over 50% enjoying a company car and in his case, a TESLA S.
The video didn’t advance anything beyond the banal acceptance that the future is electric cars, so get used to it. I personally have nothing against electric vehicles, I wish others were as liberal in their thinking. I do not like the way those who promote electric vehicles, tend to have very strident, often aggressive views, about other motive fuel options.
I was also dismayed to see on screen the feeble lack of open honesty portrayed, when the National Grid guy was describing his £300 cost (to him) of installing his own home charge point, nicely grant supported. He went on to say, no new substation required, no new cabling required to feed into the house no digging up the drive. I wonder exactly how many in his particular road have TESLA cars needing charging? I am guessing very few, otherwise that increased infrastructure would be required.
He also quietly sidestepped the government support costs at the start of the piece, simply describing various committees set up to help develop policy etc.
I thought the Top Gear guy was vey professional.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  ghalfrunt
November 9, 2020 9:31 am

They forgot tax currently paid via fuel tax, road tax, import tax and VAT.
With the majority of the car park becoming BEVs, will the BEVs be taxed in much the same way or put on the income tax, or can the country do without tax?

November 9, 2020 4:19 am

Here’s an idea. Save some time and money by voluntarily setting up a wood-burning parlor stove in the various rooms in your hovel, add a wood-fired fireplace to cook your food, just like them there folks in the 18th century (before closed stoves were developed), and learn to live a primitive life like your great-grandparents did.

No bathrooms (carry a pail of water to the tub), no toilets (outhouses), no indoor plumbing at all. Ain’t that just GRAND????? And indoor lighting? Kerosene lamps are good, those antiques I have from my great-grandma need new wicks and chimneys, but they still work and I can always buy more. And cook? My 1998 gas stove is NOT a convection oven stove, so the gas valves will open on the cooktop and I can light them with a match.

I’m ready for winter!!! Bring it! I”ll invite Loydo and griff over for a few minutes of warmth AFTER they chop some wood and before I send them out the door into the blizzard.

OH, wait – the OFA and FA almanacs both say a wet, sloppy winter where I am. That means clear roads, no plowing and no snow shoveling! Yay! This should be fun!

November 9, 2020 6:06 am

Well I’m sure the lack of wind is due to climate change so…….(That is until there is too much wind)

Stefan Parzer
November 9, 2020 7:36 am

…see how ‘powerful’ renewables are in the German grid right now:

klick on the blue button “letzten 7 Tage”

Tim Spence
November 9, 2020 8:07 am

If it’s a problem in November, it’s a sure thing January to March

November 9, 2020 8:29 am

Recent study that showed the enormous amounts of CO2 forced from the soil by turbine wind shear
indicate that land based wind turbines have no ability to reduce carbon emissions. They should be banned. What a laughable situation. Of course, another study indicated that the current atmospheric CO2 density prevents any further global warming as a result of increased CO2 levels. But the extraordinary ignorance of Western populations to understand the the vast superiority of molten salt small modular nuclear reactors for power generation is perhaps understandable, considering their ignorance about “proven” renewables. Renewables truly suck, as do their proponents.

November 9, 2020 10:44 am

Obviously it will fail. But some people will get very, very rich.

Alasdair Fairbairn
November 9, 2020 10:46 am

Sailers know all about this. Slatting about, windless, going backwards with the tide in a sloppy sea trying to get round Dodman point tells you much about intermittent renewable energy. Been there – done that.
The ship of State is not immune to this.

November 9, 2020 1:50 pm

re: “For two days running, (4th and 5th November), National Grid, UK’s Electricity System Operator has issued System Warnings in the form of an Electricity Margin Notice, alerting the markets to a reduced system margin. In large part this is due to low levels of wind power ”

One word: Idiots, mostly in government and policy/decision-making ‘roles’.

November 9, 2020 5:28 pm

I remember distinctly a rough day trying to get from Belle isle to Lorient on a sailing ship into a nasty cold strong northerly.

We tacked up & down the coast against the wind for hours getting thoroughly cold, wet and sea sick, advancing by a mere 2kms.
After about 3hrs of this we started up the engine and headed for port (still about 15kms away).
I recommend it as a reminder of how small we are compared with the wind or sea.

Anyone who is stupid enough to think they can power a large country AGAINST the forces of nature either has never experienced nature at all or belongs in a lunatic asylum.

Sadly it’s exactly the same kind of snowflakes who rely on GPS to walk over a mountain cliff in the dark are those who are now attempting to kidnap professional industries like power generation to prove they can defy the laws of physics or gravity.

John Sandhofner
November 9, 2020 8:02 pm

This should not come as a surprise for anyone with half a brain. For any society to completely switch over to wind & solar and eliminate sufficient nuclear or fossil fuel back systems are foolish. There will be times when the sun don’t shine (every night guaranteed) and the wind doesn’t blow. Acceptable battery technology is not yet ready for prime time. You can’t depend on your neighboring utility because, most likely, they are in the same situation as you. People who can not see how this condition can exist should not be encharge of utility companies.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights