Put More Money into Renewable Energy or We’ll Report You to Joe Biden?

British Wind Biden
United Kingdom (UK) solar and wind energy, renewable energy concept with windmills – renewable energy against global warming – industrial illustration, 3D illustration + Joe Biden Looking Angry

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Guardian, Boris Johnson has only pledged £4 billion per year of an estimated £33 billion per year which is required to fund Britain’s zero carbon conversion to renewable energy. But the Guardian are confident Joe Biden will take an interest in Boris Johnson’s apparently lacklustre commitment.

Global experts question UK’s commitment to tackle climate crisis

Boris Johnson pledged to put environment at centre of post-Covid strategy, but report says funding needed is so far badly lacking

Toby Helm and Robin McKie
Sun 8 Nov 2020 21.00 AEDT

Boris Johnson’s government is investing only 12% of the funds needed to tackle the climate emergency and the growing threat to nature, according to a new report that will raise fresh international concerns about the UK’s commitment to the green agenda.

The study – released before an expected major speech on the environment by Johnson – says ministers need to commit £33bn each year of this parliament to green causes. So far only £4bn a year has been pledged.

The report by the IPPR thinktank comes as Johnson faces increasing global pressure to act, most notably from the next US president Joe Biden, who is committed to green causes. Donald Trump took the US out of the Paris agreement on climate change, but Biden has promised to rejoin it on 20 January, the day he takes power.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/08/global-experts-question-uks-commitment-to-tackle-climate-crisis

Britain plans to become “The Saudi Arabia of Wind Power”. But every other year Britain seems to experience a prolonged wind drought, at least in the last few years – 9 days in 2018, at least two weeks in July this year.

I guess if they build a really huge battery able to provide the UK’s daily energy consumption of six terawatt hour, and maintain that level of power for a couple of weeks, Britain will be able to make it through the wind droughts.

The big South Australian battery which cost AU$161 million holds 129MWh, so Britain needs about 6 trillion / 129 million = 46,500 South Australia size batteries for every day they plan to keep the grid supplied with electricity when the wind fails.

14 days x 46,500 batteries x AU $150 million = AU $97 trillion (about GBP £53 trillion / USD $70 trillion) should just about cover it. Get on with it Bojo.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 9, 2020 10:08 am

When do they start construction on the undersea power lines to S. Africa to offload the power?

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 9, 2020 12:08 pm

You wish! But subsea power connections are getting an increasingly bad rap for unreliability. Ask Tasmanians about Basslink. Or the inhabitants of Jersey, whose link to France got trashed by the tides. Or the inhabitants of the Hebrides, who find that they have to shut down their wind farms because the surplus export cable to mainland Scotland has failed, and they don’t have the cash for repairs. Or the Rampion wind farm, off Brighton, Sussex, which has spent many months on and off because of cable faults. Or the Irish about the Moyle interconnector to Scotland, which has has repeated faults and long periods in part or no service. Or the long suffering bill payers in England, doling out constraint payments to Scottish wind farms because they can’t export power over the Western Link HVDC cable, again with repeated faults and long period out of service. Or about the trawler that trashed the IFA link from France to England, rendering it unserviceable for many months. Or about the Norwegian links, the partial loss of which has caused problems across Scandinavia, as explained here:


You may prefer Eskom’s power cuts. At least they don’t usually last for months on end.

Reply to  It doesn't add up...
November 10, 2020 12:38 am

Yes, the Western Link has had problems. doesn’t seem to have been built right?

but to say the whole HVDC network is unreliable is nonsense

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 10, 2020 12:37 am

They are of course building HVDC lines to Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and more to France… will be 10GW of capacity connected to the rest of Europe from the UK.

willem post
Reply to  griff
November 10, 2020 6:58 am

Europe has a network of HVDC connections, which it needs to spread the wind and solar grid disturbances all over the place, so they more or less disappear in the noise of the grids.

Nothing can be analyzed.

See appendix of this article.


World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) from the US Energy Information Administration.

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.


China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less EXEMPT from the Paris agreements

NOTE: Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution. Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

NOTE: A UN Council would have determined a level of spending, say $500 billion/y, to be allocated by UN bureaucrats, to save the world from climate change. It would have assessed all members, likely in proportion to their GDPs. The non-OECD countries would continue to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements. The US would have been assessed for more than $150 billion/y!


It is very difficult, and expensive, to reduce world energy consumption, and associated CO2, with a growing world population, that requires a growing world economy to spread increased prosperity to more and more people.

It took 28 years to increase renewables from 7.0% in 1990 to 10.7% in 2018, requiring about $5.6 TRILLION, at an average investment of about $200 billion per year.

It would take 32 years to increase renewables from 10.7% in 2018 to 50% in 2050, requiring at least $49.5 TRILLION, at an average investment of at least $1.5 TRILLION per year


Whereas world and US renewables goals may be partially achieved by 2050, CO2 reductions would be significantly less than claimed by wind proponents.

If gas turbine power plants perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient).

Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.

The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

In the appendix are three articles that explain in detail the less-than-claimed CO2 reduction of wind electricity on the electric grid.


The below graph, in exajoules, shows world total energy consumption from 1850, with about 1.26 billion people, to 2018, with about 7.63 billion people. The more people and economic growth, the more energy is required.

1 exajoule = 0.9478 quad
1 quad = 1.055 exajoules =10^15 Btu

Barnes Moore
Reply to  willem post
November 10, 2020 8:24 am

Excellent links – thanks!

Reply to  griff
November 10, 2020 7:34 am

Think of all that high voltage DC power flowing all over the place on the ocean bottom! A fault could kill whole schools of fish and electrocute the seabirds that feed on them. It’s enough to raise the feathers on a cormorant’s crest! Here, I thought you were an environmentalist.

November 9, 2020 10:26 am

Fortress Europe just got electrified fences too.

November 9, 2020 10:28 am

New term to describe the renewable-unreliables — wind drought. Sunshine-drought soon to come.

Reply to  beng135
November 9, 2020 10:40 am

Wood pellet burn-out ?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Vuk
November 9, 2020 12:55 pm

Nope, wood is dependable despite your ignorance of the subject.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 9, 2020 1:49 pm

Thanks to the stupidity of the UK’s government millions of people in the UK have to cut down on their childrens’ food in order to be able to pay their electricity bills subsidising your wood chip business.

Reply to  Vuk
November 10, 2020 12:38 am

What utter nonsense. UK poverty isn’t driven by power plant choices.

willem post
Reply to  Vuk
November 10, 2020 7:02 am


A lot of photos

Government bureaucrats and logging proponents often claim there is little clearcutting in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
That is not true, based on-site inspections, and satellite and drone surveillance.
Just Google and you will find plenty of clearcutting all over the place, including in national and state forests.

Vermont Clearcutting

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in Vermont, before the proposed logging and clearcutting of the Green Mountain National Forest, GMNF.

As you look through the plans, at the list of proposed acreage of each logging type, in each plan, it is worth noting “group selection” in USFS timberspeak, is simply a bunch of “smaller” one to two football field sized clearcuts, not in any sense what people think of when they think of “selective” logging. An example can be seen on page 15 of URL

Also, the 15-year GMNF plan is set to expire in 2021. GMNF is pushing these long-term, “programmatic” projects to essentially tie its own hands, before it gets around to revising its Forest Plan. These projects have the real danger of pre-allocating lands to active management (including portions of inventoried roadless areas) before the forest goes through a proper Forest Plan revision process.
GMNF is rushing to get these projects done while the current administration is in office. See URL

New Hampshire Clearcutting

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in the White Mountain National Forest, in NH, similar to what is planned now for the GMNF, though the plans for GMNF appear got be even more aggressive.

For a view of what the logging will look like, see the identical “vegetation treatments” in White Mountain National Forest in NH

Massachusetts Clearcutting

Much of Maine has already been heavily cutover, and I don’t have any images of that, but in this report, the green areas show forests with greater biomass (i.e., larger trees), where much new logging is being targeted

Lots of Clearcutting Coming to GMNF

15,000 acres, 12,000 acres of it is clearcutting

About 6700 acres more logging in GMNF

Thousands more acres here

Look at the logging on just this one “project”:

Burning Wood is NOT Clean

Regarding the “cleanliness” of wood…

High Asthma Rates in Vermont

Vermont already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country

Oregon, the Paragon of Clearcutting

And for twice the fun, for anyone interested just to see how bad an unchecked logging industry can get, see this video from Oregon:

willem post
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
November 10, 2020 6:51 am


Pro-logging interests use “Burning Wood is Renewable” as a slogan, a mantra, to assure others all is benign, because it helps save the world, fight global warming, are part of the “solution”, and thus deserves to get money via the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Sources of CO2 of Logging Sector

All of us need to be on the same page regarding the A to Z sources of CO2. Here is a list.

1) Before logging, the logging sector has to be set up, operated, maintained and renewed, which emits CO2
2) A wood-burning plant has to be built, which emits CO2
3) The logging process includes maintaining the woodlot, culling, harvesting, chipping, and transport to user, which emits CO2
4) Operating the plant requires electricity, diesel fuel etc., which emits CO2
5) The combustion process emits CO2; in fact, emits more lb/million Btu than coal; coal power plants are up to 44% efficient, New England wood-burning plants about 25%
6) The combustion process emits sub-micron particulates, which requires electricity for air pollution control systems, which emits CO2
7) Delivering the heat and electricity to users requires electricity, which emits CO2.
8) Heavy cutting and clearcutting releases belowground biomass decay CO2; belowground is about 20% of all biomass.
9) Dismantling the old wood-burning plant and replacing it with a new one.

Combustion CO2, about 56% + Decay CO2, about 14%, equals about 70% of A-to-Z CO2.
It has the possibility of being partially renewable.
All other items are like all other CO2, i.e., not renewable.
They are almost never mentioned by logging proponents. See table 1

Particulates from Wood Burning

The wood burning sector is major cause of combustion CO2 and other CO2 in NE, plus sub-micron particulates.
Gas, hydro and nuclear have nearly none of such particulates.


CO2 Absorption Cycle

Combustion CO2 is absorbed, under NE conditions, in about 80 to 100 years, in about 115 to 135 years, if the 35-y C-neutrality period is included; Year 1 is the combustion year. See URL for C-neutrality explanation.

When a woodlot is logged, some belowground biomass is killed (clear cutting kills all of it), because it is no longer needed by the trees that were cut. It decays and emits CO2.
The decay process, start to completion, under NE conditions, takes about 80 to 100 years.
While the decay takes place, any new tree growth on OUR harvested areas would offset more and more of the decay CO2, until the new tree growth has completely offset the decay CO2, which, under NE conditions, takes about 35 years.
After the C-neutrality period, the combustion CO2 of Year 1 (and ongoing decay CO2) would start to be absorbed by the new tree growth on OUR harvested areas.

The Interrupted CO2 Absorption Cycle.

The new trees on OUR harvested areas most likely would be cut well before they have had a chance to absorb all the combustion CO2 of Year 1 (and ongoing decay CO2), because, in the real world, a logger would come along, would see the 40 to 45-year-old trees, and would harvest them (veni, vidi, vici); those trees had barely started to absorb OUR combustion CO2!!

There ends the fantasy of “burning wood is renewable”, because there is no spare forest for “our remaining combustion CO2 (and ongoing decay CO2)”. Other forests already are busy absorbing CO2.

OUR combustion CO2 has to be absorbed on OUR harvested areas to be called renewable.

The OTHER CO2 not related to combustion, is similar to any other CO2, for accounting purposes.

The atmosphere, the oceans, and other CO2 sinks would absorb a part of “our remaining combustion CO2” (and ongoing decay CO2)”, as well “our OTHER CO2”. That absorption would not be by OUR harvested area, and thus not be “renewable”.

Reply to  beng135
November 9, 2020 10:37 pm

What new term describes this, back in 2013 ??

Reply to  Technetium99
November 10, 2020 2:26 am

Yawn. Try something original for a change.


Peta of Newark
November 9, 2020 10:31 am

The “Growing Threat To Nature”?
Give me strength!

Humankind has so far turned one third of Earth’s land area to desert
One third remains under ice
We are fully on track to turn the remaining third to desert, well inside the next 100 years.

And Trapped Heat has precisely zero, nada, zilch, diddly squat or sweet FA to do with it

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 10, 2020 9:59 pm

???? Global cooling after about 8K yrs ago caused the creation of the Sahara and Arabian Deserts, probably others too, maybe due to less water vapour in the air. Regardless, humans aren’t to blame, in fact agriculture may have developed around the same time to make up for the drying up of “Eden” – mankind has been fighting climate change for thousands of years!

November 9, 2020 10:36 am

Boris Johnson refused to address a question on Joe Biden’s anti-Brexit position, but praised the prospect of “American global leadership in tackling climate change”.


I had hoped for another four year delay.

Johnson is hated by just about everybody now.

Ron Long
November 9, 2020 10:39 am

NASA just announced that here are at least 300 million inhabitable planets in our galaxy. Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life on this planet, let’s go look at one of the others.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 9, 2020 6:46 pm

Well, Bimballa is a nice place, but it has monotremes the size of horses (with poison glands, like all monotremes) and a very active range of volcanoes on the northern end of one continent. But it has nice seasonal weather changes most of the time. The problem is, most of the mammals have some kind of poison glands like the monotremes, and can be quite nasty when they’re annoyed.

On the other hand, if you prefer something more settled, there’s Scalassi, which is mostly good farmland and HUUUUUGE forests, and is leaving its last ice age, which means that the migrating herds are funneling themselves northward toward grazing turf. No really, really big predators, but they do have armadillos (or something like them) the size of motorcycles.

Reply to  Ron Long
November 9, 2020 7:30 pm

What about planet Libtardia? It’s empty now. It’s inhabitants all came here when they heard about other people’s money.

The caves and former homeless camps stink a bit, but nothing was ever built there, so the rest of the land claims are pristine.

Harry Davidson
November 9, 2020 10:41 am

When the BBC wanted to interview Biden yesterday he said, “The BBC? I’m Irish” and shut the door. In this and many other ways he has made it crystal clear that he is even less interested in relations with the UK than Obama, and Obama very pointedly humiliated our Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and went out of his way to be offensive on other occasions.

Any UK politician who doesn’t recognize this fact and react accordingly is a fool.

Reply to  Harry Davidson
November 9, 2020 11:00 am

Can we then call his VP ‘Indian’, or is that racist ?
Lord Kilclooney (he is Irish too) sparks outrage after calling Kamala Harris ‘the Indian’. He is urged ‘retract and apologise’.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Vuk
November 9, 2020 11:58 am

I don’t have a favourable impression of Ms Harris on a number of fronts. Assuming the putsch goes ahead and she becomes President soon after the mid-terms, I suspect people will have a lot of names for her.

Those who make it their profession to be offended will always be offended. Of course 1.3Bn Indians will be offended that she designated the term ‘Indian’ an insult. She should retract and apologize,

Reply to  Harry Davidson
November 9, 2020 6:50 pm

Well, if they’re from India are they anything besides Indians? How is that an insult to them?

I’m trying to understand the convoluted mindset that goes into this twisting of reality.

Reply to  Sara
November 10, 2020 5:54 am

>>I’m trying to understand the convoluted mindset that goes into this twisting of reality.<<

You're maybe not yet caffeinated enough? Here's a clue:
Ms. Harris was also offended when someone called her 'a Sara', exclaiming "Do I look like a 'Sara'? I suggest you retract that immediately"

Reply to  Sara
November 10, 2020 8:19 pm

Naw, she couldn’t possibly look like a ‘Sara’. We’re a distinct species, come in all shapes, sizes and colors, and some of us have stripes, too. I know at least two Saras that have dots. I think you call them freckles, or something.

She’s nothing like us…. thank the Maker for small favors.

Reply to  Harry Davidson
November 9, 2020 12:05 pm

The worst part for the UK is that, by congratulating Biden for his fake win, Boris has ensured that Trump will not look kindly on any future deals after he wins the election.

The man is going to go down as the worst Prime Minister Britain ever had.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  MarkG
November 9, 2020 12:31 pm

I doubt that, it is just standard diplomatic procedure to congratulate the winner. Boris doesn’t like Trump, but that has been clear for a while. Let’s face it, few people like Trump, they just like what he does.

Boris’ congratulations won’t prevent US UK relations going into a deep freeze, substantially chillier than with Obama, worse than Truman even. No bad thing in my view, I would prefer a proper froideur to fake friendship.

Reply to  Harry Davidson
November 9, 2020 1:44 pm

Except Biden’s not the winner. There’s plenty of time for things to change.

Various governments have said they’re not congratulating anyone until the election is actually settled. Boris, on the other hand, went all-out to congratulate his ‘Build Back Better’ buddy as soon as the media declared him winner.

Trump is going to look kindly on those governments who waited, and cold-shoulder those like Boris who jumped to congratulate the man who tried to steal the election.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkG
November 9, 2020 2:17 pm

Exactly what do you think is going to change? So far only Georgia has stated that there will be a recount and even that was automatic rather than because of any evidence of fraud. And even if Trump wins both Georgia and Arizona he will still be behind in the electoral college.

Reply to  MarkG
November 9, 2020 3:57 pm

I’m not Trump, so I don’t know what he’s planning. But he clearly seems to think he can win, and some lawyers seem fairly convinced that he can at least get Pennsylvania back as well as other states.

Either way, he has a few weeks to expose enough fraud to win.

Reply to  MarkG
November 9, 2020 7:40 pm

Yep, Rod Blatherovich got his “interesting” pardon for some reason. If he names names there’s time for depositions, I’m sure and, presumably, especially Illinois.

Did Alioto issue his ruling alone, or did the Supreme Court all vote? If so, which way did the weenie (Roberts) vote?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkG
November 9, 2020 8:49 pm

Dementia Joe is no longer Pres-Elect, earlier today RealClearPolitics withdrew Pennsylvania from the Blue Side, meaning he no longer has 270 votes.

Donald Boughton
Reply to  Harry Davidson
November 10, 2020 4:13 am

Who in their right mind would take the comments, about the UK power supply, of the Scientifically and Technologically illiterate Dementia Joe Biden. A warning has been issued about the UK power supply
dependence on un-reliables that is making the system potentially unstable. The UK should standby for brownouts and its dark cousin backout.

Carl Friis-Hansen
November 9, 2020 11:08 am

The “Growing Threat To Nature”?

Strange term. What precisely do Toby Helm and Robin McKie imply? This ambiguous statement is difficult comment.

Okay, Toby and Robin is selling us something costing £33bn per year.
What is this something and how may we, Joseph Biden and nature benefit from it?
Will the £33bn please the weather gods, thus ensuring optimum 14m/sec wind speed for the wind turbines and a clear sky for the solar PVs?

That is about £800 per family per year and may not be such a bad deal if Toby and Robin will promise no excess birds and bats are killed with their product. That electricity bills will remain or fall from current level. That rural areas are not getting plastered with industrial concrete and steel constructions.

A cost/benefit covering all aspects of Toby and Robin’s deal is expected before further evaluation is and consideration is possible.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 9, 2020 12:26 pm

They got paid for this exercise in sh!te, and they’ll get paid for the next exercise in sh!te that they produce. It’s a salve for useful idiots. It doesn’t pay as much as it used to but it still pays.

Reply to  philincalifornia
November 9, 2020 5:30 pm

So. True! It’s all a scam.

November 9, 2020 11:40 am

We’re doomed.

I’d like to know where the cash is going to come from to pay for this nonsense?

The UK is all but bankrupt after wasting £300bn on 2 pointless lockdowns.

Reply to  John_edmondson@hotmail.co.uk
November 9, 2020 12:36 pm

Not recommended to show your full email address else you’ll get an avalanche of spam from auto-bots trawling internet.

John Edmondson
Reply to  Vuk
November 10, 2020 12:48 am

Thanks Vuk

Reply to  John_edmondson@hotmail.co.uk
November 10, 2020 1:09 am

It is no where near that much, about 42 bn so far, with a month more of lockdown adding perhaps 20 bn at most.

Of course the cash isnt going to come. Sizewell C just got the go ahead, the UK is going Nuclear. A few turbine to grab the headlines and keep the enviros happy, but no real commitment.

John Edmondson
Reply to  MatthewSykes
November 10, 2020 4:28 am

Thanks Matthew. I’m less confident. The national debt has gone from around 80% to 100% of GDP, so around £400bn.


Not good.

David Kamakaris
November 9, 2020 11:41 am

Would one of the alarmists out there please say what is so wrong with climate that an investment of this magnitude is necessary?

Griff, before you reply, your reasoning needs to be able to withstand honest scientific scrutiny.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
November 9, 2020 12:32 pm

He might not show up for this one, so let me do the honours in case he doesn’t:

Waaaaaaah, Arctic sea ice is lower today than it was in 2012. We’re all going to die of Arctic sea ice being below 2012. Waaaaaaah.

It doesn't add up...
November 9, 2020 11:55 am

You have greatly underestimated the battery capacity needed to keep the UK powered up, partly because you are only looking at short spells of well below average winds. I have done calculations based on an optimised combination of wind and solar using 30 years of refactored weather data from Staffel & Pfenniger that show that at least 30TWh would be needed, assuming present demand levels.

Of course, the assumption that is usually made is that interconnectors can save the day. Unfortunately, when it comes to seasonal and annual averages, which are the main drivers of storage needs, it turns out that it ain’t necessarily so. Weather systems are persistent and at continental scale. Here are a couple of charts that offer some insight into that:

This is taken from actual wind outputs from across Europe, and show the daily totals of wind output in 2016 (ENTSO-E closed their data server in 2017):


This is a heat matrix of the correlations of the hourly data summarised in the above chart:


The extensive positive correlation across Northern Europe show the scope for interconnectors is limited.

I also took a look at the Staffel & Pfenniger data, which divides wind up into onshore and offshore (where applicable) hourly capacity factor estimates by country covering 35 years, producing this scatter chart of average capacity factors and the degree of correlation to the European average. The highest correlations are with the epicentre of coverage in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, but there is no anti-correlation that would be necessary if you were to find wind blowing someplace else when it isn’t locally.


Staffell & Pfenniger claim their data produces a 95% correlation with actual wind generation as justification for their approach to use weather data to estimate wind speeds and hence wind outputs. It does have the advantage of a long run – 1980 to 2016 – to evaluate those seasonal and inter-annual swings, and of not being based on a purely statistical model, which can never imitate the random patterns of weather successfully. I have not attempted to verify their claim, but perhaps it should be on my agenda.

November 9, 2020 11:58 am

Why wait for Jan. 20th to award him the Nobel Prize….in something or other. Barry says do it now.

November 9, 2020 12:02 pm

The adds on this website terrible. Had to be said.

Reply to  Jeroen
November 9, 2020 12:47 pm

Use ‘Adblock’ & you’ll never see another add.

J Mac
November 9, 2020 12:27 pm

RE: “Boris Johnson has only pledged £4 billion per year…. to fund Britain’s zero carbon conversion to renewable (Unreliable) energy. ”

Why waste £4 billion per year, attempting to implement a non solution to a non problem?

Reply to  J Mac
November 10, 2020 12:09 am

You can add the other £10+ billion a year currently paid in subsidies to renewables

It doesn't add up...
November 9, 2020 12:32 pm

Your new EU GDPR cookie advisor is causing problems. If I close and accept, it causes a page refresh after a delay, with page blanking for quite some seconds. Then it pops up again.

It doesn't add up...
November 9, 2020 12:42 pm

The UK problem is not what Boris has pledged, but that Parliament has signed up to a legally binding commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. Cost is now immaterial, and the planners are simply assuming that whatever it takes and whatever it costs, will happen. Try looking at the National grid Future Energy Scenarios for a taste of the coûte que coûte assumptions.


This is the vision (page 27)

Societal change – what does that mean exactly?
It is about how we all change our behaviour to reduce our carbon footprint and support the
transition of the energy system. It could be change imposed by government or change led
by consumers.
In a net zero world, end consumers are likely to consider the impact of their consumption
beyond their immediate energy usage. The Committee on Climate Change outlines actions for
people to reduce their emissions in their Speculative net zero scenario. These include choices
about transport, diet and products.
For example:
1. Take public transport or cycle to work
2. Minimise flying
3. Eat less beef, lamb and dairy
4. Buy products which last and repair them, instead of throwing away
5. Share infrequently used items like power tools.

Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2020 12:47 pm

The climate’s in trouble! Borence of Arabia to the recue!
Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Gordon A. Dressler
November 9, 2020 12:49 pm

It’s the first trading day for stocks, currencies and commodities after Joe Biden was declared US President-elect last Saturday.

At the time of this post, oil on the international commodities markets is UP a little over 8%.

Now, was somebody mumbling something about a new push for “green”, renewable energy?

November 9, 2020 12:49 pm

as can be seen here

David Wells
November 9, 2020 1:00 pm

In 2017 UK experienced 7 consecutive months of windless days. Two months we would have needed 1.6 million 2.5mw turbines, we frequently get 2 or 3 consecutive days when we would a couple of hundred thousand and today we would needv176,000 2.5 mw turbines or 440gws. I email Boris, greens and anyone else I can find but my efforts are completely ignored.

If the UK stopped generating electricity today the UK would mitigate 0.0000748% of global Co2. I managed to discuss the issues with a guy at BBC Look North today and the response I got was but if everyone does their bit then it will work. So I explained why it would not, the response well thats your argument.

Its the complexity of the topic which confuses which is why i suppose the UN made it sound so simple just stop emitting Co2 and everything will…what?

Its not a religion its an infectious disease for which no antidote exists. They wont understand until they have screwed the whole environment.

There are at least 6,000 people superficially described as professors some of which I have conversed with but as soon as i mention satellite data the phone gets slammed down in disgust.

November 9, 2020 1:01 pm
Right-Handed Shark
November 9, 2020 1:09 pm

And yet, in every commercial break on TV, there are energy companies saying switch your contract to them and they will supply energy from 100% renewable sources. This has to be a lie, why are they allowed to get away with it?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 9, 2020 2:44 pm

The fine print probably says “sometimes, sort of supply almost 100% energy from renewable sources”?

Gerry, England
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 10, 2020 5:10 am

They cover their backsides by buying bits of paper which are only of any use in relation to your backside. At least – as far as I know – nobody is charging you extra for this virtue signalling like they used to. Probably because they are all at it. I am with a bunch who say it is 100% but they came out cheapest so I moved to them.

Worse is the ‘smart’ meter advert that lies by saying if you fit one you will save money and bring about greater use of unreliable energy. The only saving is by using less power but it has been shown that after a few weeks of playing with the display people get bored and just do what they need to do. I know, I had 2 free energy meters once and after watching it for a bit you just don’t bother with them and I think I dumped them in the bin a while back.

November 9, 2020 1:13 pm

So Biden is already a political cardboard cutout, interesting. He will make a great wax figure like Lenin.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 9, 2020 11:34 pm

He isn’t even a cardboard cutout, more like a drunks painting effort of a stick man.

November 9, 2020 1:47 pm

Renewable drivers, disposable converters, an environmental blight, a forward-looking source of instability on the grid and attached appliances.

November 9, 2020 1:49 pm

Thanks to the stupidity of the UK’s government millions of people in the UK have to cut down on their childrens’ food in order to be able to pay their electricity bills subsidising your wood chip business.

November 9, 2020 2:34 pm

Joey Bideno is the Godfather of the Bideno Crime Family…..47 years of corruption.

Reply to  T. C. Clark
November 9, 2020 2:57 pm

Selling influence, operating rackets, yes. Didn’t the Italian mafia draw a line at socially progressive, sexual exploitation of children?

Tom Abbott
November 9, 2020 5:46 pm

I think a lot of alarmist activists are projecting their own desires on Biden.

Yesterday he was going to browbeat Australia over Climate Change. Today Biden is going to browbeat the UK over Climate Change.

A lot of projection going on.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 9, 2020 7:21 pm

Tomorrow he would be browbeating somebody over something, except he’s already forgotten what it was. At ease chaps.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 9, 2020 11:29 pm

The Australian PM already answered that yesterday to the greentards he gave them the bird.

So lets see if Biden is anything but talk, he said a number of times during the election what will happen so lets see if the old fool has any stones left.

Gunga Din
November 9, 2020 6:15 pm

He just needs to pose with that mean face (for now).
Harris and AOC will do the browbeating.

Gunga Din
November 9, 2020 6:18 pm

That picture needs one one of those cartoon balloon captions saying, “What the hell are those things?”.

November 9, 2020 10:39 pm

In honour of Joe’s win I’m proud to announce the observa home is now zero emissions just like EVs because it’s all electric unlike those recalcitrant Trumpites with the gas on. While the garage and drive contain 2 ICEs instead of EVs the boundaries of the suburban estates could be added to the home if I park them out on the street. May the ensuing climate change smile forever upon such homes and lands for those who truly care and dwell likewise. Green accounting is so easy once you get the feel of it.

Vincent Causey
November 9, 2020 11:32 pm

“Green” investment plans will come up against the reality of economic depression, mass business failures and world war levels of debt. I doubt that will stop them though.

November 10, 2020 12:35 am

‘But every other year Britain seems to experience a prolonged wind drought, at least in the last few years – 9 days in 2018, at least two weeks in July this year.’

Though you should note that UK power demand drops from around 48GW on a winter evening to 35GW at peak in June/July -and the peak is around mid day. When of course the sun is shining…

It isn’t as if there’s no power at all.

Patrick MJD
November 10, 2020 1:53 am

Headline should be…

“Put More Money into…my bucket!”

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 10, 2020 6:19 am

No, don’t be silly. Honest Joe doesn’t have a bucket. But Hunter will be along any minute now as Chairman of the UK company Green For My Crack Inc., with two buckets. One for him, and one for… the Big Guy.

November 10, 2020 8:13 am

As usual articles and comments in WUWT are not disappointing being filled with information and humor. Information on power distribution was interesting but the Biden comments tell a lot with the Logan Act possibly coming into play.

In the election a candidate can only vote once for himself, not thousands of times. We will see how it shakes out but is not looking good for Joe.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights