Letter to UK Minister of State (Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth)

Dear Mr Kwarteng,

As one of your constituents I wrote to you in June 2019 requesting an analysis of how on earth we could become a carbon free society by 2050 or whenever in the face of the monumental impossibility of building enough wind turbines to accomplish the task. I have to say that I was not at all impressed by the quality of your reply in setting out a clear and achievable route map.

I should tell you that although I am now semiretired I spent a career in the oil Industry as a Geoscientist – Geology and Geophysics, finishing up as the international manager and, co-founder and  co-owner of a small oil company that achieved the modest success of producing gas and oil from Turkey at a rate of 1000 Barrels per day of oil equivalent and employinhg a staff of 40. I am therefore well versed in energy provenance and economics.

As a natural scientist I remain to be convinced that the observed modest recent rise in global average temperature is either unprecedented, dangerous or even human caused, and despite my analytical research have yet to see any observational evidence that would persuade me otherwise.

This is not a fashionable view,   You may beg to differ and we might have a civilised discussion on the matter. However that is not what I want to discuss today. I am no great protagonist of a fossil fuelled future and would welcome an alternative that could deliver the benefits of our bounteous fossil fuels.

What does seriously concern me is that our present decarbonisation attempts through the medium of unreliable renewables does not have any chance of replacing our present energy budget and must inevitably lead to the total economic ruin of our nation

I note that you are now Minister of State (Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth)

And in that capacity, I must bring to your attention the following.

I have worked out fairly completely the complete current energy budget of the UK on a spreadsheet and produced answers as to how we can get to carbon free by 2050. This spreadsheet can be found at the following drop box address.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fv5qjhnjk3z2865yjz9ng/2021_01_06_AG_UK-energy.xlsx?dl=0&rlkey=bklgq9of6et8b2nuj3gqwdn6e

I urge you to download this and disseminate it to your civil servants.

I have also made some appendix tables extracted from this spreadsheet that summarise some of my conclusions.

The following are facts distilled from that spreadsheet

  1. In the UK we consume annually 1295TWhr (Terawatt Hours) of effective energy (Total input energy of each type times efficiency factor). This is the total energy budget over all sectors of our society.  Of this 

158 TWhr (12%) come from renewables like Nuclear, Wind,  Solar,  Biomass and Hydro. The remainder 1137 TW hr (88%) comes from Fossil fuels

78 TWHr of the renewable total currently come from Wind and Solar (about 6% of our total energy requirement

  • Assume that  we  replace all of our fossil fuel with wind power We need to build at least 32,000, 10 MW nameplate leviathan wind turbines, assumed to be offshore , to be commissioned  to achieve “Net carbon free”,  without even considering what happens when the wind does not blow.
  •  Assuming we wish to get there by 2050 we must commission 3 leviathans per day starting today. This takes no account of the fact that the lifetime of these units is 20 years and from 2040 to 2050 we would need to double up to 6 units per day.

There are plans afoot to establish 4.5 GW of offshore wind farm by 2025. This equates to a total of 500 units and an installation rate of only 0.27 per day. This is about 10% of the required deployment rate so we are off to a roaring start!

Moreover the annual energy supplied by these turbines in planning or construction equates to about 7% of our current oil fired energy

  • We need 150TWhrs to supply all our cars with electricity This is about 12% of our total energy budget, it is also about 100% of all renewable energy currently being produced  by Wind solar nuclear biomass and hydro.
  • Assuming all of the vehicle charging was done in one of our 8000 odd current service stations we would need 115,000 chargers working 24/7 to do this. So each station needs 14 charging units working at a total power requirement per service station 6 MW or about 1.5 dedicated Turbines per charging station. Assuming 50% of charging was done at home  we could halve this figure  but would have to spend hundreds of billions beefing up the grid to supply
  • When I tank up my car with diesel the energy flow is equivalent to the exclusive output of 4 wind turbines for 2.5 minutes. I suppose that this means that Diesel is a pretty inefficient way to power a car. Electric motors are grantedly more efficient but the difficulty is getting the electricity from the wind turbine into the battery.
  • Electric bikes are great and it would require the output of only 2000 wind turbines to keep all of the motorists in the UK moving 24/7 on electric bikes. That equates to 200 wind turbines to enable us all to cycle 2 hours per day. This is doable.

It is glaringly obvious that it is completely impossible to keep 40 million cars on the road in the UK powered by renewable electricity leaving out for the moment the infeasibility of supplying enough Lithium, Cobalt  and rare earth elements to accomplish the task. Therefore it is not going to happen. 

I suppose one should address the question “when you go about your daily business is it really necessary to haul a ton of metal on wheels along with you?” Most of our daily business could probably be done if we swapped ownership of cars for ownership of bikes. However if this is the game plan from our political masters then we, the masses, should at least be told this. One feels also that the gilded elite would still like their Teslas, tax free of course because they’re green don’t y’know and the carless masses would still pay for the upkeep of the roads.

I look forward to a detailed reply to these issues and am confident that with your new army of dedicated civil servants this will be rapidly forthcoming.

I also expect one of these Civil Servants will point out any shortcomings or logical flaws in my spreadsheet – that is if you can divert at least one of them from the no doubt more absorbing task of counting Carrie’s flatulent unicorns, and would welcome such interaction.

I wou;ld also be thrilled to present my findins to a Conservative Party constituency meeting if you would like to convene one – Hopefully a real one and not a Zoom affair.

In the face of a Corbyn threat I did actually vote for you in December 2019. This is a vote that I deeply regret now because Boris and Carrie are well on the road to out – Corbyning Corbyn in every piece of woke governmental nonsense that Jeremy proposed.

I note now that your party have let  your northern voters by stymieing the opening of coal mines in Northumberland and Cumberland opting instead to import the same amount of coal that these mines would have produced. Futile virtue signalling that actually increases global CO2 emissions, as the coal is now being imported- from our good friends in Russia . Mr Putin is reportedly thrilledbut he is such a nice man.

Likewise these voters will be thrown further  into unemployment with the inevitable run down of our energy intensive industries under your decarbonising schemes. Their jobs of course will be done elsewhere in a more CO2 intensive manner so not doing much for the planet.

Our government have a plan to replace methane in domestic gas appliances. Good heavens man doesn’t your government  have a whit of realisation that the only viable source of hydrogen is steam reforming methane – at 75% efficiency if you are lucky. You may be able to convince me that this is something other than moronic nonsense, but I doubt it.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair Gray

[Here is a second location for the spreadsheet~cr]

4.7 18 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 7, 2021 2:04 pm

No point.
The nutters are in control.

Don
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
January 7, 2021 2:19 pm

And all that insanity is coming to America now.

Walter Horsting
Reply to  Don
January 7, 2021 3:31 pm

It took over California 15-years ago…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Don
January 8, 2021 4:24 am

Massachusetts just passed a net free nirvana bill for 2050. It’s impossible. I keep asking state politicians and environmental groups how it can happen. No responses. It really pisses me off. Now, they’re even saying net free isn’t good enough- we must start lowering CO2 in the air- and the best way is to lock up all the forests. Being a forester for almost half a century- I think that’s nuts. It’s not as if the people of the state are being asked to stop buying wood- they’ll get it instead from the PNW, the rain forests, Siberia and other distance places shipped here using fossil fuels! Yes, the nutters are in control

pwwatson8888
January 7, 2021 2:14 pm

I wrote to Blair when he was newly elected in 1997. I urged him to plan for multiple Nuclear Plants so by 2010 we would be more energy independent. Having worked in the Offshore E&P Coal, Refining, Chemical Industries I am now convinced that Politicians have no more idea about the real world than Mr. Ed.

JonasM
Reply to  pwwatson8888
January 7, 2021 3:09 pm

That’s a nasty thing to say about Mr. Ed.

Wade
Reply to  pwwatson8888
January 7, 2021 3:09 pm

I disagree. Mr. Ed knows more about the real world than any politician.

Hotscot
Reply to  pwwatson8888
January 7, 2021 3:44 pm

Never a truer word spoken. Boris Johnson is a mediocre, observational and political journalist/commentator. He knows so much about climate science that his green girlfriend changed his mind on the subject almost overnight.

He knows even less about Covid, and I can just see Sir Humphry bamboozling him with political speak every time he opens his mouth.

Boris’ objective isn’t to be a great PM, his ambition is to be a hero to the nation by solving every big picture problem we have, well, at least London has. He has no idea where Newcastle is never mind Scotland.

Dougie
Reply to  Hotscot
January 8, 2021 11:15 am

It’s nonsense to blame Carrie, Boris has been a deep shade of green for decades. He inherited it from his father.

n.n
Reply to  pwwatson8888
January 7, 2021 4:33 pm

I have to agree with the other commenters. A horse is a horse is a horse of course. Can you say the same for people who believe otherwise? Just imagine the liberal license exercised to normalize the excesses of progress. Think Great Leap, again, and again, and again, presented with different labels, and shrouded in different judgments. Keep the faith. Just imagine that it’s possible, plausible, and force a consensus.

Julian Flood
Reply to  n.n
January 8, 2021 1:17 am

A horse is not necessarily a horse. It might, for example, self identify as a donkey which would qualify it to stand for Parliament.

JF

Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 2:15 pm

That’ll be straight into the circular filing cabinet.
I emailed my MP back in 2018, asking how we would be replacing the coal-fired power stations, when they’re all closed in 2023. These are the stations producing around 3GW today, much the same as wind is.
My reply?

Thank you for your email. The Government believes that it is unacceptable for an advanced economy like the UK to be relying on polluting, carbon-intensive 50-year-old coal-fired power stations. Affordable, reliable, and crucially, clean energy is critical to our economy, our national security, and to family budgets. This is why the Government has recently announced all coal-fired power stations where carbon emissions are not being captured and stored will close by 2025.

 

Nuclear and gas power stations will be crucial for ensuring a secure supply of energy to always keep the lights on in Britain. The Government is also delivering on its promise to further support offshore wind, and will more than double capacity throughout the 2020s as long as costs come down, securing Britain’s place as a world leader for offshore wind.

 

The UK is a world leader in clean growth and has invested more than £52 billion in renewable energy in the UK since 2010. The Government’s Industrial Strategy sets out how it wants to make sure that the UK continues to reap the benefits from the transition to a low carbon economy.

 

I hope this information is helpful, and thank you for taking the time to get in touch.



Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 3:37 pm

The typical patronizing BS that one gets from US legislators when their platform is questioned.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 7, 2021 4:20 pm

Worse. I’ve corresponded occasionally with Diane Feinstein. This is worse than anything I’ve ever seen from her.

Hotscot
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 3:56 pm

To be fair to your MP, he did answer your question. It might not be the answer you wanted, it might not even be the right answer, but he’s conformed to government guidelines and the letter is probably one of a raft of standard letters they pick the most appropriate one from.

There is no point in asking an MP a question. They’re all as slippery as one another.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Hotscot
January 8, 2021 3:15 pm

And that is why I no longer show any respect, kindness or patience with any pollies anymore. Both barrels, so to speak, every time now and make them angry.

DonM
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 4:18 pm

From the reply: “The Government’s Industrial Strategy sets out how it wants to make sure that the UK continues to reap the benefits from the transition to a low carbon economy.”

What benefits have been reaped?

And, if those ‘benefits’ have been (net) negative, why the hell would one want to continue reaping said benefits?


Last edited 5 months ago by DonM
Hotscot
Reply to  DonM
January 7, 2021 4:45 pm

The clue is in the word “transition”. The proper government response to anyone questioning the entire statement you cite is, “we are not there yet. Any long term plan has up front costs”. Suggesting of course, that they understand what they are doing, and what the benefits will be.

DonM
Reply to  Hotscot
January 8, 2021 9:56 am

The word I key on is ‘continue’, as in “… continue to reap the benefits….”

Hotscot
Reply to  DonM
January 8, 2021 3:45 pm

“continue” isn’t evasive enough for a politician.

“transition” has innumerable connotations for them, lots of room for manoeuvre.

It’s not what you key in on, it’s what they key in on that matters.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 4:18 pm

“The Government believes . . . ibble-de-bibble . . . fairies at the bottom of my garden . . . wobble-de-bobble . . . unicorn flatus . . . dipso-facto, quod erat de nonsensum . . . “

alastair gray
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 7, 2021 11:40 pm

I have no great expectation of getting any meaningful answer But perhaps a vacuous circomlocution can be published to help hold the cluelessness of our establishment up to ridicule

griff
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 8, 2021 12:57 am

all but 4 UK coal power plants have now closed: in 2019 they supplied 2% of UK electricity, in 2020 0.7%. Effectively we are already doing without them.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
January 8, 2021 2:09 am

true but a straw man. I talk about decarbonising all energy not just electricity generation. Please Griff where are the 3 Wind turbines per day required to be carbon neutral by 2050, or maybe you dispute my numbers

Hotscot
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:47 pm

Griff now has a policy of drive by comments. He’s decided not to engage in debate because he was so frequently humiliated in the past.

Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 8, 2021 3:02 am

Going for nuclear and gas would be fine but they now want to phase out gas too.
Nuclear carries little favour with climate alarmists so the reply is actually false since they are really planning to minimise both gas and nuclear.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 8, 2021 11:56 am

For that 52 billion pound ‘investment’ what, exactly, in money terms did/will the British taxpayer get in return? Using concepts like the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) won’t cut it. For example, using insanely speculative UN IPCC models and historically inaccurate econometric models to guess at the future cost of Bangladeshi sea level rise means nothing to the British taxpayer, nor any other taxpayer/energy consumer around the world. And speculative benefits of a Marxist utopia are insane.

dennisambler
Reply to  Adam Gallon
January 9, 2021 3:13 am

I get the same from my “Conservative” MP.

dk_
January 7, 2021 2:18 pm

Spreadsheets, Britain… no good can come from this.

ATheoK
Reply to  Jordan
January 7, 2021 4:31 pm

Charles neither said or implied any such thing…

An expert energy scientist wrote that!

Jordan
Reply to  ATheoK
January 8, 2021 12:22 am

I quoted from the post. Read the post above.

Editor
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:02 am

Charles did not write this post – it is a letter from Alastair Gray to the Minister

As for your link, it only applies to high energy users, which does not cover most industry. It is also no help when companies are forced from cheap gas to expensive alternatives

ATheoK
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 1:47 pm

Unable to read who wrote the article.
Unable to read my reply to you… “An expert energy scientist wrote that!”

Lack of reading comprehension.

Jordan
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 12:26 am

Charles

I’m trying to draw your attention to the fact that Energy Intensive Industry has a “get out of jail card” for the costs of decarbonisation. So much for “the polluter pays principle. That means everybody else has to pay (Theresa May’s “JAMS”) while others are probably parading their support for planetary salvation without having to pay the cost.

Pity my comment got voted down. Makes this place look like an echo chamber.

Editor
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:04 am

The costs avoided by energy intensive firms have to be passed onto other users, so there is no free lunch

alastair gray
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:15 am

Then if we allow indulgences for EIS (as we should) then our gov’t policy is not Carbon free by 2050. maybe they should say that and certainly they should have allowed the coal mines in N. England to supply cement and steel industry elsewhere in UK. I dont think you got voted down, and addressing remarks to the chair is not out of order

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:18 pm

Still no discussion of the speculative monetary benefits of the war on CO2, Jordan. Social Justice Warrior ‘equality’ and Marxist utopia benefits are not quantifiable and should not be included in rational discussions. Additionally, the whole idea of creating green jobs is economic insanity; look up the broken window fallacy and also review the fact that Spain lost 2 jobs for every green job created.

Jordan, you need to quantify the ‘benefits’ of reducing CO2 ‘pollution’ and compare that to the objective benefits of the actual, ongoing CO2 enhancement. Other than some minor, post LIA warming and rainfall increases and the approximately 20% greening of the planet, there have been no climate change.

Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 9:23 am

Dave – I just want to respond to say your comments about SJW etc completely misrepresent my position. Take off your own goggles my friend.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 9, 2021 2:03 pm

The two points of my comment directed to you, Jordan, specifically asked you to quantify the cost/benefits of CO2 reduction schemes. My other points related to common CliSci misdirection and promotion of Marxist economics.

Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 3:51 pm

Dave – Here’s my position, just to make sure we are absolutely on the same page, and you can spare the barbs.

Benefit of CO2 abatement = zero.
Therefore cost of CO2 abatement = too expensive at any level.

Government policy and regulation is required to provide a cost benefit analysis. CO2 abatement fails any cost benefit test in my view.

The link provided in my original comment (which you did not read – hence the reason for the misunderstandings – easier for you to come back at me with misdirected barbs) will make it abundantly clear to you that UK Energy Intensive Industry can apply to the UK government for an exemption from the costs of decarbonisation

This is an obscenity as these companies consume vast amounts of electrical power. Paul Homewood seems to think it’s OK because its “only” large industry (cough!). I don’t think its OK, because it shifts the burden onto others.

Consider my point about policy carrying out a cost benefit analysis. One CBA says we must suffer the cost of decarbonisation. Another CBA says the biggest consumers of power don’t have to. It’s absurd.

(Are you starting to get the point yet?)

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 9, 2021 5:47 pm

In answer to your ultimate question, no, I don’t get your point. I suspect you have no real point and are just playing around with word games to prove your intellectual prowess. A person reading your comments in totality, however, might reach the conclusion that you don’t like large, mass electric energy consuming businesses.

I did originally click on your link. Seeing it was merely one of billions of mindless government bureaucratic regulations, I did not pursue it in detail. [I’ve had quite enough of that in my career, thank you.] Thinking I may have missed something based on your latest “misunderstandings” comment, I looked again. Nope, its still a stinking pile of government nonsense.

I will probably going to regret this, but I’ll wander around the weeds with you for awhile:

I read that you believe the government has no rational basis for its electricity-produced CO2 abatement laws, nor for the resulting bureaucratic regulations. Based on that, I would hope you would oppose anybody (including corporations) paying CO2 abatement costs (decarbonization is a nonsensical word). Given that the original CO2 abatement schemes are arbitrary and unsupported by cost/benefit analyses, logically nobody should pay anything.

Because of the politics of seeming to destroy jobs and ship UK manufacturing overseas, however, the politicians decided to carve out an exception for industries using significant amounts of electricity and engaged in world trade. Its obvious you don’t like that. Is it a sense of fairness?

My question to you: Would it not make more sense to attack the whole scheme rather than attacking industries benefiting from an abatement of the anti-human costs? These are politically inspired costs, not actual costs. In reality, the totality of those costs will be borne by middle class Britons. Saving some manufacturing jobs will have the practical effect of spreading out those costs amongst a larger middle class populace.

If the arbitrary, political costs of CO2 abatement are more readily apparent to the people who will ultimately pay the bill anyway, would they not make more rational political choices? The sad part is the past real costs of shipping UK manufacturing overseas to appease multinational crony capitalists have not been readily apparent to voters. The sooner common people identify their true enemies, the venal politicians, the better.

Last edited 5 months ago by Dave Fair
Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 10, 2021 4:13 am

“trying to prove your intellectual prowess”. Wrong and unhelpful (goggles getting in the way again).
“don’t like large, mass electric energy consuming businesses”. Completely wrong.

Having got that out the way, we are almost fully aligned on the following.
“stinking pile of government nonsense”
“no rational basis for its electricity-produced CO2 abatement laws”,etc.
“unsupported by cost/benefit analyses, logically nobody should pay anything”

Making an exception for industries using significant amounts of electricity and engaged in world trade reveals the decarb agenda as the farce it truly is. Is the government saying we need to save ourselves from thermageddon? Or is the government saying that some special interest groups don’t have to, because loss of trade and jobs is even more scary than thermageddon?

To the ordinary voter, this definitely will seem like an unfairness. They will hate the fact that they are already making very significant sacrifices while big industry gets away with not paying.
About 30% of their electricity bill is already being wasted on useless virtue signalling – that’s going to be about £150/yr to the average UK household.

It is a political process, and voters are being given no choice as the main parties refuse to debate MMGW at the elections.

So how to give the cosy political consensus a good kick up the jacksy? Not writing to your MP, it would seem.

Voters hate paying for policy – which is why tax rises are so poisonous at election time (ask Theresa May). Voters always like promises when somebody else pays – which is why the “taxing the rich” is so popular in the UK.

Put that together, and I would expect a good section of UK voters will hate the the fact that they are paying for planetary salvation while “big business” gets off the hook. That’s possibly a better way to try to change public sentiment.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 10, 2021 10:13 am

OK, “… I would expect a good section of UK voters will hate the the fact that they are paying for planetary salvation while “big business” gets off the hook.” is your thesis, Jordan. We are making progress! I would characterise it as “Lets demonize big business to get voters to pressure politicians to … do what?” What is the “what” you want politicians to do, Jordan? Depending on your answer to that, should we consider alternatives to demonizing “big business?”

Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 10, 2021 11:48 am

No, not demonizing big business. Goggles on again. The closedmindedness is shocking. I’m done here. Good day sir.

cgh
January 7, 2021 2:55 pm

Any significant reduction in GHGs cannot be done without: 1. doing without electricity; or 2. using a lot more nuclear power.

griff
Reply to  cgh
January 8, 2021 12:58 am

And in theory UK power planning still includes 17GW of new nuclear (I think Hinkley is included in that). But nobody can find a way to pay for them

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
January 8, 2021 2:21 am
  1. I am all for it Griff . However 17 GW equates to 4000 leviathan turbines (see spreadsheet) or the equivalent of 1 years turbine commisioning rate that I raise as Mr Kwarteng’s avowed intention. The main thrust of my argument is that if we really want to get there by 2050 then we are making aa right hash of it
Richard Page
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:35 am

That is indeed the question – “if we really want to get there by 2050” or is this global grandstanding for the COP26 to be followed (after bojo puts Britain forward as a global climate leader) by a more realistic strategy? Someone must have told the Downing st clown couple that this plan can never work as advertised, mustn’t they?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
January 8, 2021 2:21 pm

But they have found a way pay for the intermittent bird choppers?

Jordan
January 7, 2021 3:04 pm

Whether or not a person believes there is any merit in the whole MMGW thing, there is an absurdity lurking about in a net zero target.

Firstly, the more we abate CO2, the less significant our remaining emissions. As total emissions drop, the case for further reductions follows a law of diminishing returns.

Secondly, as we seek to reduce CO2 emissions, it is right to pick off the easier options first, and turn to the more difficult options afterwards. The marginal cost of abatement therefore rises.

We should therefore expect a reducing curve for benefit (economists refer to it as diminishing marginal utility) and a rising marginal cost curve. Policy should be focused on these important points.

Net zero pays no attention to this. It assumes the very last tonne of CO2 is still worth abating, regardless of cost versus benefit.

But this is absurd. There is absolutely no theoretical or evidence based case to suggest the atmosphere is so sensitive to CO2 that every last tonne should be abated. If the climate was so sensitive to CO2, the case to do anything would have been lost a long time ago.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:30 am

I thought “Net Zero” was the targeted IQ level to be achieved with the Green Blob’s planned public education programs… /Sarc

M Courtney
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 3:32 am

You make two very good points.
The easiest wins come first.
The least important wins come last.
So your conclusion that “Net 0” is an unsound policy makes sense. You offer realistic short-term wins without the worst costs.

I think that this approach would have far more effect on politicians of all colours than criticising the PM’s latest mistress.

Dave Fair
Reply to  M Courtney
January 8, 2021 2:33 pm

You still have not quantified your “wins.”

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 4:35 am

Here in crazy Massachusetts, the environmentalists are saying net zero isn’t good enough. The state just passed its 2050 net nirvana zero bill. But the enviros are saying we now must lower the CO2 in the atmosphere and to do that we’ll just lock up all the forests- wiping out a small forestry industry that employees thousands- who produce a low carbon footprint product, wood. Forest owners who can’t sell timber occasionally will more likely sell their land to developers.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 8, 2021 2:32 pm

Your comment, Jordan, is based on classic economics, with which I agree (having an economics minor in college). However, you fail to identify economic benefits of CO2 reduction. A quantification of the benefits is absolutely required to perform a cost/benefit analysis. And reasonable adaptation measures must be accounted for in any rational cost/benefit analysis.

Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 9:27 am

Dave – I just want to respond to say your kinda getting where I am coming from. It’s not for me to quantify the benefits of CO2 reduction … in fact I believe there are none. I consider there is ZERO cost of CO2 abatement that can be justified. My comment does not declare this to be my position, so just be careful to make sure you goggles don’t put too much unnecessary colour onto a commenter.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jordan
January 9, 2021 2:37 pm

If you believe there are no benefits of CO2 reduction, why did you refer to a cost/benefit analysis? Any ‘colour’ I might apply to you as a ‘commenter’ (in your estimation) could have been avoided had you simply stated your opinion in your original comment. As for any (negative?) ‘colour’ my (ideological?) ‘goggles’ may have put upon you, I explicitly agreed with your economic theory and neutrally stated that you did not include a description of economic benefits of any CO2 reduction. Lighten up.

Jordan
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 3:57 pm

I made my position clear Dave when I stated in my original comment that net zero is absurd.
My response to you was influenced by your comments just upthread, because I did not like the leap to references to SJW.

Mr.
January 7, 2021 3:26 pm

Here’s my (quite unremarkable) Nostradamus impersonation –

“it shall come to pass before the mid-point of the 21st century that the woke generation shall fall upon their leaders for failing to provide reliably usable electricity for the masses, whereupon the masses will seize the means of production everywhere and apply these resources to the generation of nuclear power for the ongoing subsistence and benefit of all human kind”

ATheoK
Reply to  Mr.
January 7, 2021 4:36 pm

That’s not a Quatrain.

Hotscot
January 7, 2021 3:37 pm

How to not have a letter read by a government minister, lace it with sarcasm and insults.

Believe it or not, these guys are busy, and they employ people to read stuff for them before it even reaches their desk.

The instructions are, if it’s badly written – bin it; at the first insult – bin it; if it doesn’t make sense – bin it; if it’s long – bin it; if it remotely resembles wasting my time – bin it etc. They find excuses to bin stuff, not to read it. At best, you’ll get a standard, pro-former reply back “saying our government scientists believe man made climate change is real and we have plans to cure it by installing more wind turbines”. I have one you can read if you want.

The difference is, I emailed my own Conservative MP with my letter, in the vain hope I might get some support, but the witless, gutless little toad just sent it up to one of his superiors, an office tea boy, who badly photocopied said Pro Forma letter, sent it to my MP who badly scanned said Pro Forma letter and emailed it to me. Shocking disdain for the public just doesn’t cover it.

And mine was polite, to the point and immediately informative.

They know full well that 20 years down the line, when everything’s gone tits up they’ll be sunning themselves on a tropical island somewhere enjoying their nice guilt plated pension.

If the media ever did find your letter, he would be long gone and there would be no point in saying then, I told you so or, “Kwarteng should be jailed for impoverishing the nation”.

To get a ‘heavily modified’ letter read you need to garner support from your MP or someone in authority like a senior government official. But that will be difficult as they are all very cautious about risking their fat pensions.

An alternative might be to find a few younger hot shot MP’s or government officials who have ambitions to make a name for themselves, irrespective of the risks.

Another way might be to approach your alma mater and/or the various professional bodies you are/were a member of for support.

The first objective of a letter is to have it read. The second objective is to interest the reader enough to want to meet you for more information. The third objective is to give them no excuse not to meet you; if Kwarteng gave you the option of Zoom or nothing, because of Covid, you have done your initial job and piqued his interest.

If you have given him every bit of information you have, as it seems you have done, why would he need or want to meet you. Remember, this is a busy guy with an over inflated sense of his own importance, why should he spend time with someone when he already has all the answers in front of him.

And the real problem is, you haven’t even hinted at a solution, all you’ve done is criticise government (or rather Princess Nut Nut’s) policy. He’s not going to go to Boris and say “your girlfriend is a daft bint because this guy says she is”. I don’t suppose he would be in the job for long.

Suppose Kwarteng is also a climate sceptic, but doesn’t have any alternative but to go along with Boris’ plans. You haven’t helped him one bit by giving him some reasonably costed alternatives. The guys objective in life is to be a hero, give him some help.

The letter you get back, if you get one back, will probably include something about working with the Nuclear industry to develop ‘concurrent solutions’ like, the 16 Rolls Royce SMR’s being planned for the north of England, and the invitation to the Fusion industry to develop a reactor by 2050, like there aren’t already countries and well funded organisations such as Lockheed Martin’s Skunkworks working on it already.

The fact is, Oxford Tokamak have mini fusion reactors planned for 2030. If it comes off then the country can take chainsaws to every wind turbine installed today, and they will have served only half their serviceable lives. https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk

Hope it all helps.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Hotscot
January 7, 2021 4:52 pm

Hotscot: “The fact is, Oxford Tokamak have mini fusion reactors planned for 2030.”

Be aware that ColMosby’s Homestyle Molten Salt Reactors LLC has plans for commercial deployment of its own nuclear technology in 2029, a year ahead of Oxford Tokamak. The limeys had better move their schedule up to 2028 lest ColMosby get the jump on them.

Hotscot
Reply to  Beta Blocker
January 8, 2021 3:51 pm

Molten salt reactors are conventional fission, unless I’m badly mistaken, whilst Oxfords are Fusion.

alastair gray
Reply to  Hotscot
January 8, 2021 12:27 am

At least I saved trhe SARC and Boris baiting til the last para. No great faith in a reply. I may do St Greta outside his house. I have a rare dour Scottish scowl but not quite up to that of a demented Pippi Longstocking – How dare he !!

Hotscot
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:54 pm

I’m with you all the way mate. Your letter was fantastic, don’t get me wrong, but they don’t respond unless you egotise them and make them think you’re the next step on their ladder to success.

David Wells
January 7, 2021 4:02 pm

I have been emailing and writing leters to the met office beis ccc bbc for years explaining in great detail exactly the same issues and they dont take a blind bit of notice. The bbc and ccc accused me of being vexatious and beis in responce said they were doing their best to save the planet completely ignoring everything i said. I sent a foi request to the met office and they responded with the product of a model study which I refuted as it was not evidence that Co2 was causing warming catastrophicaĺy or otherwise.

They responded to that by saying they would hold an internal review to make sure they handled my foi correctly. They emailed me saying my foi had been handled correctly but never answered my questions. I missed a stage out. They first said i should contact the ipcc because the met office didnt have the data i had asked for so i said but you do modeĺing work for the ipcc so you must know what they know and that is when the sent me a modelled report.

I had a long discussion with a guy called Steve at the met office this morning referencing their cet record as a starter and having knocked back all of his nonsense he said so you dont believe the world is warming then. I said climate is about science and physics not a philosophical pursuit and your own cet record shows the uk warmed by 2C from 1700 to 1745 then it cooled right up to 1975 then warmed by 1C then cooled back to 1745 level so why should i believe its warming when your data says it is not. Then he said I can sèe we are not going to agree on this, i said agree on what? That on the basis of your beliefs confounded by your own evidence that its warming when your own data says it is not. Then as usual when i have these conversations they cant wait to get off of the phone it usually gets slammed down.

The classic one was Claire Perry who said we need to teach our children the skills they need to stop climate change, I am still awaiting a reply but as she resigned i doubt i will ever get one. Having had many conversations i remain convinced none of the green deranged have a clue what they are talking about the just ruthlessly exploit the hypothesis using their phds as evidence their protestations should be taken as fact but when questioned they rabbit absolute drivel fail to provide evidence and just slam the phone down.

They have no credability whatsoever they are paid by government to churn out misleading studies to support a government agenda. The ipcc says x but the report for policy makers says y and the uk is at the forefront of the duplicity. Carpeting the environment with wind solar and battery farms is incompatible with saving the environment but when you point that out they get confused and start blabbering nonsense saying you dont want to save the planet then. One green female burst into tears when I told her that wind turbines are made from steel from ore imported from Australia using coal and oil to power the ore oil carrier she said that was dreadful it has to stop sniffle sniffle we have to save the planet.

They really dont have a clue, thick as mince.

Hotscot
Reply to  David Wells
January 7, 2021 4:58 pm

Outstanding perseverance.

I have often considered holding local ‘Climate Education’ sessions in our village hall. Inviting people in to very gently begin questioning them first of all on their understanding of what’s going on with the climate. Then just very carefully sowing the seeds of doubt rather than confronting people.

The reason I don’t is because I’m neither educated, nor bright enough to deal with the science issues some smart ar5e would raise.

It might be a good place for some people to start though. Have to be handled with kid gloves though so people don’t just get up and walk out.

Enough of them around the country might prove worthwhile.

Last edited 5 months ago by Hotscot
alastair gray
Reply to  Hotscot
January 7, 2021 11:58 pm

Good points Hotscot here and in your reply to me. The question is how to bring any part of the establishment to a rational consideration of the realities of energy supply. David’s village hall meeting will probably not change any minds, but the forum for that should be online and in twittersphere. I keep racking my brains about how to devise a sensible strategy but where data and rational argument bounce of the skulls of the emotionally convinced it is an uphill struggle. Maybe we should all go to Glasgow for a counter-COP Fest in November

Oldseadog
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:11 am

Certainly we should all go to Glasgow for a counter COP Fest.
The problem will be how do we get reported properly in the MSM.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 8, 2021 11:22 am

OSD: You will not fail to get reported – as disruptive elements – once the false flagged greens join your protest. They will make sure you end up like the MAGA army: irrelevant, as far as news goes. If they can screw 74M supporters, we are small beer.

There’s a whole new ball-game out there now. No matter what you think of Trump, he was the President – and popular. But the swamp managed to get him out and their own corrupt players in. I think the rules have changed and it’s going to be harder to break the resolve of the likes of AOC and her Marxist friends (I don’t count Biden and family as Marxists: they are old-fashioned capitalists, only out for their own ends) – to whom climate change is a means to an end. If Zuckerberg/Dorsey/BBC/etc can cancel a President there’s not much you can do – except, change tack.

Hotscot
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 8, 2021 4:02 pm

No point. What do you advertise it as? Climate sceptics unite?

Then all you get is climate sceptics attending. You would persuade no one.

We need Guerilla scepticism.

TonyN
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:35 am

Alistair; your Glasgow COP- Fringe Festival is a great idea! It certainly worked for Edinburgh and the Arts in general.

I too have persevered on a policy issue via writing to Institutions, APPGs, Ministries, and also the local MP, learning HotScot’s techniques the ‘hard way’. I finally got a really good reply from the relevant minister, who is asking for more detail!

However the Zero Carbon policy agenda is much more difficult to engage, especially as the Government is stuck with hosting the COP conference in November. Perhaps a concerted effort say via the ‘Big Tent’ organisation to hold a mid-late summer colloquium ranging from the philosophical motivations to the practical consequences of the ‘Net Zero’ policy, as a clearing house for a forthcoming Counter-COP fest to be held in November on a ‘Glasgow-Fringe’ basis The theory is that if the papers/presentations are amusing and interesting enough to be likely tograb the nation’s attention at the COP-Fringe, our politicians and the official COP organisers might be confronted with the fact that they have competition, and will be scrabbling around to delay the COP or at least to tone-down their frankly misanthropic demands…

Maybe WUWT contributors could help with papers, presentations, skits and the like?

Dave Fair
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 2:43 pm

One starts with information on weather-related damages not worsening in over 100 years and build on that. Facts matter.

Hotscot
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 8, 2021 4:03 pm

We have been repeating that mantra for the last 100 years. Where has it got us?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Hotscot
January 9, 2021 1:45 pm

And your starting point is?

Hotscot
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 10, 2021 3:14 am

I’ve explained that above.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Hotscot
January 10, 2021 9:58 am

We need Guerilla scepticism.” is your starting point? What does that even mean?

dennisambler
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 9, 2021 3:31 am

Facts matter, but not to politicians and greens.

Dave Fair
Reply to  dennisambler
January 9, 2021 1:45 pm

And your starting point is?

Hotscot
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 3:59 pm

My point of the village hall meetings is not to change minds, it’s to sow the seeds of doubt.

A counter COP would do nothing but attract the ‘sceptic faithful’ and would be an echo chamber, as most of these things are. We need to be far more intelligent and cunning.

How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time.

dennisambler
Reply to  David Wells
January 9, 2021 3:28 am

A perfect summary of the situation. Perhaps we should get onto the animal rights people that we should stop battery farms, they might be taken in 🙂

Mack
January 7, 2021 4:05 pm

Off topic chaps but, with the Biden/Harris, big tech autocracy coming to power in the US, be brave or be afraid. The same issue will roll over the rest of the countries that used to benefit from the ‘Age of Enligtenment’. Obviously, the Griffs and Stokes et al of this planet will have a ‘get out of jail’ free card in what would seem to be a new Dark Age. As for the rest of us, who may have contributed to Anthony’s and similar sites over the years with a skeptical frame of mind, and (seemingly, controversially) still believe in the scientific method, our days may be numbered. An ill wind blows in the West and, I suggest, you make the most of the weakening eye of free speech before it closes finally on our endeavours. The days of having ‘wrong thoughts’ in the climate/political debate, never mind deeds, will soon be criminalised should our new masters have their way. We have a simple choice: lie down and take it or stand up and fight for truth and honesty. There lies the test for all of us.

alastair gray
Reply to  Mack
January 7, 2021 11:59 pm

New Dark age or Dark New age or same thing. We may be first to hang from the lampposts but take consolation that the useful idiots will not be far behind

Wil Pretty
Reply to  Mack
January 8, 2021 2:15 am

Trump made the USA energy self sufficient. He kept Iran under control.
With Trump gone, Iran will kick off again.
UK imports the majority of its energy from the Middle East. If Iran disrupts this the UK is in an existential crisis, maybe in the short term.

tomo
January 7, 2021 4:11 pm

It’s good that Alistair Gray was concerned enough to write to Kwasi Kwarteng –   an Old Etonian Kennedy Scholar  …  far too grand to pay attention really … and reputedly an associate of Le Cercle  – I have to assume his bread always lands butter side up.

Doubtless one of Kwarteng’s ex Greenpeace / FotE / WWF DECC seconded and TUPED to BEIS activist “advisor” minions will type up an evasive and patronising single A4 note for the minister to sign.

n.n
January 7, 2021 4:25 pm

Not Green? So green. Just imagine clean, renewable greenbacks. It’s real, if you believe.

ATheoK
January 7, 2021 4:25 pm

I love it!
I wish that sending it as a Howler was possible.

alastair gray
Reply to  ATheoK
January 7, 2021 11:15 pm

well I am his constituent so he just lives down the road . Maybe a Hogwarts Howler is possible

ATheoK
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 1:54 pm

Yes.
The trouble with writing to people in executive or governmental office, they usually have someone unimportant filtering/responding to their constituents. Rarely does the chief government representatives get the harsh or controversial letters.

What I like about Howlers, yes fantasy Hogwarts Howlers, is that:
A) The letter only opens in the presence of the person addressed.
B) Everyone in the same room hears the entire letter.

alastair gray
Reply to  ATheoK
January 8, 2021 12:47 am

Aka Boris Some might say ” Cockstruck buffoon” Like Sir Humphrey, I could not possibly comment

Peta of Newark
January 7, 2021 5:04 pm

It gets much much worse..

Starting point=
Quote:
“”In the UK we consume annually 1295TWhr (Terawatt Hours) of effective energy (Total input energy of each type times efficiency factor). This is the total energy budget over all sectors of our society.“”

Now & again I look in on a little ‘renewable Energy forum based here in the UK.
They presently have a thread discussing Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP)
Glorified air conditioners basically.

If every home in UK was required to use an ASHP, most would in fact need to be ASHP versus the main other type, the Ground Source Heat Pump

The original post in that thread said he was using 130kWh per day to heat a home of 250 square metres in North West England.
By turning down the temperature to 16 Celsius(##) in every room, he cut 45 kWh off that.
Another commentator told us that his ASHP was using 45kWh per day

Assuming those things are used for 200 days per year and there are 30 million homes in the UK and an average consumption of 100kWh per day, I get an annual electricity consumption of 600 TWh per year

The thread is here:
https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,32445.0.html

That is just shy of 50% of the ‘total‘ energy figure mentioned above and yet is just for electricity and just for home heating and just for 200 days per year
No cars, no goods transport, no industry, no infotainment, no street-lights, no shops, no food storage, no schools, no nuffink

We are looking at Complete Insanity here. Our leaders are ‘not of this world’

## I’m sure it was on the BBC somewhere but, UK Government advice is for folks to keep their homes at 21 Celsius – especially elderly people, those with children in the house and anyone/everyone who has any sort of condition that might cause them to suffer from Covid.
I am sure that that would take the UK home heating consumption to be in excess of the Total figure asserted here.
Those things are hideous consumers of electricity, especially in the damp UK winter climate

Last edited 5 months ago by Peta of Newark
tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 8, 2021 2:09 am

That’s a good thread but it is only telling us what we already know, that just when they are most needed heat pump heating is expensive and ineffective

Surely our extremely clever elite know all this?

Tonyb

Richard Page
Reply to  tonyb
January 8, 2021 4:28 am

I live in hope but so far, it seems as though they exist only in an insulated green bubble that has no connection to the real world. I still have a slight hope that this is just posturing to make the post-Brexit Britain as popular as possible for trade deals but only time will tell.

David Roger Wells
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 8, 2021 4:58 am

Peta after years of asking in a round about way BEIS have now admitted that the reason smart meters are not being 100% accepted is because of fears that smart meters can be used to cut off supply if the wind is not blowing – they can be used for this purpose – but if they are then ground source and air source heat pumps as well as oil and gas boilers all stop working. Government is just doing a book work accounting exercise to meet a zero Co2 idiocy because it is impossible to achieve in any other way than just chipping away at every facet of our lives. People will die if like in Germany in winter 2012/13 all 93GW’s of German wind and solar failed to generate 1GW in 3 months. Had Germany not been able to import coal fired electricity from Poland and Czechoslovakia millions would have died from hypothermia.

“People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.” Heat pumps anyone??

What we do not clearly recognise is just how far these mutants are prepared to go to pacify their own fears about their own survival we have always been cannon fodder and they all believe as does Boris Johnson that the real problem is using his words global over population. They have in their minds a picture postcard ideology of what planet earth should be like whilst ignoring the real damage they are about to impose on the same environment by carpeting it with wind solar and battery farms in the belief that this enterprise will save the planet whereas in reality it will do more harm than a bit more rain and a few more hurricanes. Utter madness.

alastair gray
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 8, 2021 8:30 am

I lived in a rural farmhouse in Norway. It had an airconditioner that I really liked , a 3 KW prehistoric woodburning Jotul stove and electric wall heaters in every room. Electricity is quite cheap in Norway from all their hydro and in fact Norway is one of the only countries in the world that can actually make renewables work- from Hydro.
Keeping the Aircon on in winter it blew quite a lot of warm air and by burning up my own wood in the Jotulthe place was quite comfy. I must admit that i did use the wall heaters a bit too. I did not actually calculate the amount or price of my aircon heat but assuming that I was getting about 3 x the heat than the electricity I was burning even in cold weather.
I do like the idea of a heatpump Aircon unit just pumping hot air. I would have no truck with connecting it to the central heating system.
I intend fairly shortly to put out another letter to my favourite minister on the pros and cons of junking gas boilers and installing heatpumps
At the moment my house which is about 320 sq m total which has an 8 kW gas boiler running 10 hrs a day uses about 80 kWhrs per day so your pal is quite prodigal with his heat but maybe he leaves the door open all day

Hotscot
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 4:11 pm

ASHP’s and GSHP’s are only useful in super insulated houses in winter.

In the UK, the ground temperature about 1M down remains about 14C (I believe). I suspect in Norway it would be a lot colder at 1M down that 14C.

A barrage of ASHP’s on a housing development would, if not immediately, within a very few years be a cacophonous racket with bearings wearing and dirt clogging unmaintained fans.

Heat Pumps are yet another niche useful product. They simply cannot serve the needs of Victorian housing with solid brick walls.

Edward Katz
January 7, 2021 6:02 pm

The proponents of large scale renewable energy have yet to point to a single country where wind, and solar have filled whatever shortfalls have been left by de-carbonizing. They’d better take a look at the predictions made by the UN’s Energy Agency, the US Energy Information Agency, and the Canada Energy Regulator, among others. Then they’d find credible predictions that fossil fuels, which currently provide 85% of the world’s primary energy supply , will still provide 60-65% by 2050. If this isn’t a sobering thought for Greens, nothing will be.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Edward Katz
January 8, 2021 2:57 pm

Within 30 years the Green (Marxist) plan on replacing the whole world’s industrial infrastructure, which was built incrementally over hundreds of years, is objectively impossible. Where would one get the money (resources)?

Hotscot
Reply to  Edward Katz
January 8, 2021 4:25 pm

The intention is not to reduce carbon emissions or reduce fossil fuel use. The intention is for control over everyone’s lives.

The concept is blamed on ‘The Left’ but they have no idea what’s happening either. Our politicians couldn’t organise a fvkc in a br0thel far less conceive of overthrowing Capitalism. I mean, their current icons are Biden and AOC. Come on folks, get serious.

I don’t give a monkeys if you’re Left or Right, none of us are that stupid.

What they are distracting from, however, in my opinion is the astonishing debt the western world is racking up. And much like an iceberg, we don’t see a fraction of the problems it will cause.

lee
January 7, 2021 6:54 pm

“Our government have a plan to replace methane in domestic gas appliances.” So how many pipes will need to be replace for hydrogen?

alastair gray
Reply to  lee
January 7, 2021 11:29 pm

If you can be bothered to read all of this below then it is feasible https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/699685/Hydrogen_Appliances-For_Publication-14-02-2018-PDF.pdf
The old gas supply pre 1970 was 50% hydrogen so presumably leak proof.
If Methane is your feedstock then all the CO2 produced lands up in the atmosphere and the process is still only 75% efficeient so converting to hydrogen increases CO2 emissions by at least 25% with huge associated capital expenditure.
if you use Co2 sequestration then bet on at least 30% of your energy more thrown away
If electrolysis of water using wind turbines is used – same technology as hydrogen storsge – then there is a 75 % efficiency in the process and huge distribution capital costs.
I will add a sheet on my Excel for home heating. Wont be pretty
I

Chris Hanley
January 7, 2021 6:55 pm

How about a government policy to mandate all cars sold after 2025 must have eight-cylinder internal combustion engines following the advice of a committee chaired by Lord Piston who just happens to also be the chairman of the High Octane Oil Conglomerate, not quite.
The UK Government is following the advice of a committee chaired by Lord (or Baron) Deben aka John Gummer whose pecuniary interests are in ‘sustainability’, ‘renewables’ etc., one company including members of his family also as directors.

Flight Level
January 7, 2021 7:09 pm

“Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth”
What, no “fish & chips” in his ministerial portfolio ?!

Only politicians can coin such zingers, their resulting dysfunctional actions become self-explanatory in this context.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Flight Level
January 8, 2021 3:01 pm

We can have “Clean Growth;” there are no real-life tradeoffs, doan cha know?

January 7, 2021 8:02 pm

Yesterday evening the system prices peaked at £1400/MWh. Normal market rate is £40/MWh.

Coal,wood,nuclear and hydro were all flat out, as were the only two inter connectors currently working to Europe.Even inefficient carbon spewing open cycle gas turbines joined in to fill their boots.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  leo smith
January 8, 2021 1:55 am

Nonsense. Are you saying that on a cold still frosty night that our magnificent solar energy wasn’t working? Next you will be telling me that just because it was dead calm that our world beating wind turbines were not working either. This is defeatist talk.

tonyb

Dave Fair
Reply to  tonyb
January 8, 2021 3:03 pm

So sayeth Adolph as Russian tanks poured across the border. [Oops! Forgot Baghdad Bob.]

Last edited 5 months ago by Dave Fair
Matthew Sykes
January 7, 2021 11:15 pm

I have said as much to my MP many times, yet nothing changes.

Batteries and renewables are impossible, the only solution is nuclear/hydrogen fuel cells, or alcohol for cars.

Alcohol is a direct replacement for gasoline, handling, pumping etc, and todays cars can run on alcohol blends already.

GM plankton to produce high sugar yields, yeast, and distillation. I envisage large plants where thousands of glass tubes have this plankton soup soaking up sunlight, and huge fermentation tanks.

alastair gray
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 8, 2021 12:52 am

You might consider methanol fuel cells as well I read about it 20 years ago and it seemed to hold some promise. Worth a full article

griff
January 8, 2021 12:55 am

This uses the ‘total energy’ figure when it is really addressing just UK electricity production… Renewable generation comprised 40.2 per cent of total generation in 2020, slightly less than the fossil fuel share at 42.5 per cent. Just 0.7 percent of electricity came from coal.

The UK is not planning on 100% of electricity from wind.

There are plans afoot to establish 4.5 GW of offshore wind farm by 2025′. There are already 10.9 GW of offshore wind, with around 30 GW in construction, approved and announced. UK wind turbines now have an expected life of 25 to 30 years…

and so on…

In short this is an error ridden and mistaken submission

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
January 8, 2021 3:48 am

A gentle answer turneth away wrath Griff.
1) Not a whit did I say about amount of UK electricity generation current or future, and everywhere in my article I only talk about Total energy requirements in the UK across all sectors.
2) The thrust of my article is to compute what total energy on an annual basis is provided by oil , gas,coal and all forms of renewables. To make comparisons valid I have reduced each component to Terrawatt Hours of effective energy – i.e. after correcting for efficiency factors.
3) I then pose the question “if this energy intensity is to be maintained in the future specifically using wind power then what must we do to get there.
4) I then effectively design a new energy unit called a ” Leviathan” which is the amount of energy that a 10 MW wind turbine operating at capacity factor 58% and transmission efficiency 70% would deliver to an end user in a year.
5) I care not whether our future Leviathans of energy are produced from Wind, Solar Unicorn excrement, Hydro or Nuclear so long as they are free of CO2 emissions, and to stretch a point rather generously I allow for all of the above that we will deem them CO2 free.
6) For example the 17GW of planned nuclear capacity that you mentioned represents 4000 Leviathans. I don’t know where your figure of 17 GW planned Nuclear capacity . Maybe you will enlighten me but
7) Hinckley C is scheduled to produce 3.2 GW from 2025 onwards. This represents about 700 Leviathans to be commissioned over say 2000 days ( allowing a little project overrun to make the calculation easier) That is an installation rate of about 0.3 Leviathans per day- far short of my postulated 3 Lev/day
8) In my spreadsheet I have tried to reference the sources of my information, and I believe everything is referenced rather than the result of my unsupported conjecturing. I apologise if I have made any errors.
Perhaps Griff you might kindly point out some of the inexactitudes I may have made in my “error ridden” submission with supporting reference please of course. I will be only too happy to correct any mistakes

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
January 8, 2021 4:36 am

The UK government is planning the withdrawal of ICH vehicles in favour of electric. And they are planning the banning of gas fired-domestic boilers.

I know that sounds unbelievable. But it’s true.

Don’t blame me. I voted for Corbyn.

Ben Vorlich
January 8, 2021 1:03 am

I’d like to throw this into the mix.

Brexit deal gives EU right to cut off energy supplies if UK tries to ‘take back control’ of fishing in 2026

‘No coincidence’ that both
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-deal-eu-energy-fishing-rights-take-back-control-812197

Although I always wondered why so much attention was paid to the fishing industry when they, like miners, always made a big song and dance about how dangerous an occupation it is, how small a contribution it makes to GDP but mainly because in the years after joining the EEC a large number of fishermen sold their quotas to European fishing fleets.

Coeur de Lion
January 8, 2021 3:20 am

I wrote to Flick Drummond MP for Meon Valley with all the usual arguments about ‘tackling climate change’ futility and received a reply about how the costs of solar had fallen and how marvellous that the Chinese had promised to be carbon (ugh) neutral by 2050. A mixture of shallow ignorance and blind stupidity.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 8, 2021 3:10 pm

A mixture of shallow ignorance and blind stupidity.” My new mantra when describing politicians and bureaucrats.

John J. A. Cullen
January 8, 2021 4:11 am

HUGE COSTS OF current RENEWABLES.

It is also worth pointing out the huge financial and resource costs that the CURRENT generation of renewable energy systems imply.

Specifically, prof. Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University has undertaken a forensic accountancy analysis of hundreds of wind energy schemes and found that they cannot be economic unless the price of electricity rises by a factor of three or four. Furthermore, the present pressure on financial institutions in the West to invest in these green schemes will result in huge financial losses for those (such as pension funds) invested in the renewable energy sector once economic reality bites.

I quote from Hughes as follows:-
50% of all wind output in the year had a net value of less than £13 per MWh and 20% of all output had a negative net value, i.e. it made everyone worse off. To be clear, Figure 9 shows that the breakeven cost of producing wind output with a net value of less than £13 per MWh is between £91 and £152 per MWh.
End of quote.
https://ref.org.uk/ref-blog/365-wind-power-economics-rhetoric-and-reality

In addition, the energy return from most CURRENT renewables technology is poor, and indeed very poor if the costs of back-up systems like batteries are included to cover their intermittency. That is, on a per unit of energy output basis, CURRENT renewables take more energy to produce than current (e.g. fossil-fuelled) systems. See especially Figure 2 in the following lengthy (sorry!) link from Cambridge University’s prof. M.J. Kelly:-
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2D40F35844FEFEC37FDC62499DDBD4DC/S2329222916000039a.pdf/lessons_from_technology_development_for_energy_and_sustainability.pdf

In short, the West is becoming green only in the sense of its naivety.

Regards,
John.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John J. A. Cullen
January 8, 2021 5:03 am

At least the wood burning at Drax doesn’t need batteries.

alastair gray
Reply to  John J. A. Cullen
January 8, 2021 8:11 am

I agree with Hughes canny assessment. My analysis gave the greenies the benefit of the doubt that the wind blows all the time. Even being that generous it is totally unworkable. In the real world inhabited by Hughes, You, I and even (from a different perspective Xi Jinping it is catastrophic

Lurker Pete
January 8, 2021 4:42 am

Given the planners all bought the globalists overpopulation meme, there could be another angle to balance the energy budget not eveident in these figures.

ozspeaksup
January 8, 2021 5:03 am

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/brexit-creates-major-problem-uk-energy-companies
[The UK is in a deficit by about 7% of its annual requirements. Undersea cables linking the UK’s grid to mostly nuclear power stations in France and the Netherlands make up this deficit.]

David Simmons
January 8, 2021 5:43 am

Today (8th January 2021) COAL is producing 7% of UK electricity demand (same as wind)….

I do hope the politicians aren’t watching – they might all have heart attacks…

Hmmm….

TonyN
January 8, 2021 6:03 am

Boris’s hidden political problem lurking behind his Princess’s Net Zero projekt;

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/01/08/10-million-jobs-at-risk-from-net-zero-pledge-says-new-report/

And the repeal of the fixed-term act could make it easier for him to change this policy …

Dave Fair
Reply to  TonyN
January 8, 2021 3:25 pm

It looks like Britain is taking over from Germany the role of crash-test dummy. Thank God the two major political parties in the U.S. still have different climate issue positions, although the Swamp is all-in alarmist.

Last edited 5 months ago by Dave Fair
David Roger Wells
January 8, 2021 6:53 am

In response to my FOI the CCC has offered up its sixth carbon budget to emphasise its determination to be Zero Co2 completely ignorance the purpose of my FOI which was to identify all of the information it held to justify its determination for the UK to be Zero Co2 deliberately evasive. My response:
Dear Charles
You have not answered any of the questions I have asked. A sixth carbon budget is a bookwork account exercise to supposedly resolve a problem that does not exist. My FOI request referred specifically to CCC correctly identifying the data which CCC uses to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs to be resolved in the first instance. FOI legislation requires the full release of all data and information held by any and all organisations which fall under the remit of FOI legislation. You are required by law to answer the questions. If you do not answers the questions then the obvious determination is that the CCC is deliberately and illegally avoiding disclosure. Unless the CCC provides all of the data and information requested the next step is a legal action to get disclosure. If CCC cannot answer simple questions driven by data then the assumption has to be that the CCC doesn’t have a clue about science, data and the environment or protection of it. The CCC has to provide full disclosure of how and why Co2 needs to be mitigated because the Met Office data makes it abundantly clear the UK was cooling whilst Co2 was rising and the globe is hugely influenced by El Nino and La Nina events but not Co2. If the 100,000 billion tons of Co2 emissions within the period of 18 years and 9 months from 1998 failed to cause a catastrophe and 541 million years ago atmospheric Co2 was 8,000ppm whereas it is now 414ppm. Why didn’t 8,000ppm cause a catastrophe? And why does the CCC think 414ppm will cause a catastrophe when 8,000ppm did not? And as natural emissions are 28 times human emissions why does the CCC believe human emissions will cause a catastrophe that 28 times more over which we have no control will not. And there is ample evidence now that during a world wide lockdown emissions have continued to rise which means human emission are so insignificant their existence cannot overwhelm natural emissions, there is 38,000 billion tons in the oceans alone. And why doesn’t the CCC acknowledge the fact that during the LIA the planet struggled to feed 1.5 billion whereas now we produce enough food for 10 billion because of maybe 0.8C of warming since maybe 1850 but again if you look at the longest record which is the CET it has not warmed at all. Why subject 65 million people to a Hand Maids Tale existence when the CCC doesn’t even know whether its warmed or not? Answer the questions???
Yesterday and today G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk) Demand 44.07GW, wind 3.04GW. Number of 2.5MW turbines needed to meet demand 127,000 or 319GW’s. Demand 44.68GW’s Wind 3.27GW’s Number of 2.5MW turbines needed to meet demand 120.208 or 300GW’s of turbine capacity. Demand 44.23GW Wind 2.93GW turbines needed 132,000 or 330GW’s. Demand 46.82GW Wind 3.54Gw number of turbines needed 116,336 or 291GW’s . So much for an extra 40GW’s how about the 3300GW’s we need right now? G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk) Demand 40.50GW’s Wind 0.27GW’s. Therefore today – Sunday – the UK would need 1.32 million 2.5MW wind turbines to meet demand or 3300GW’s of supply just to generate 40.50GW’s of electricity. You can get 1GW of reliable supply for £1 billion with coal or methane like 50GW’s for £50 billion. Each turbine costs £3 million therefore that is £3.9 trillion just for the turbines. Every MW generated by a wind turbine consumes 200 times more raw finite materials than a MW generated by coal or methane. You need 50 acres of land mass for 1MW of wind electricity so you would need 165 million acres of land but the UK has only 66 million acres. G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk) Demand 43.64GW, CCGT 22.07GW’s Nuclear 6.30GW’s, Biomass 2.93GW’s, Wind 5.61GW’s, Coal 1.53GW’s, Solar 30GW’s. Therefore today to meet the demand of 43.64GW’s the UK would need 68,464 2.5MW wind turbines or 171GW’s covering 8.6 million acres. In 2017 the UK experienced 7 consecutive months of windless days. There is no battery that can store electricity for seven months but if it did exist the cost would be beyond £32 trillion. And it isn’t even winter yet? 27th November 2020 G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk) Demand 40.20GW’s CCGT 23.16GW’s (57.62%) Nuclear 5.73GW’s Biomass (Wood Pellets from USA) 3.01GW’s Wind o.44GW’s Coal 2.52GW’s Solar 1.2GW’s. UK would need 803,968 2.5MW wind turbines to meet demand or 2009.92GW’s of capacity. If solar 40GW’s of solar. At 1MW /50 acres Vattenfall would need 100 million acres of land – UK has 66 million acres – on or off shore to meet demand at a cost of £2.4 trillion. Whereas the UK could buy 50GW’s of coal or methane generation at £1 billion/GW. Lord Deben has not denied an all electric UK would have a peak winter load of 150GW’s 3.33 times our current peak load. Zero Co2 for the UK between £6 and £7 trillion to mitigate 0.000187% of global Co2 emissions. Every road street and path would need to be dug up at a cost of £466 billion but if like HS2 that cost could double and triple. We remain thankfully within an interglacial which is relatively benign in climate terms but the next ice age is overdue and by 2100 the mile high ice which existed where your farm is during the last glaciation might have returned. The natural cycle despite what you are obliged to believe within the climate catastrophist narrative has not been broken. Coal Outperforms Wind Power During UK Wind Week! | Watts Up With That? A month ago we would have needed 1.6 million 2.5MW wind turbines, then 176,000. The cost of rewiring the UK for an all electric UK is estimated at £466 billion.

Its bad enough that if all 65 million of us died today it would only mitigate 0.000187% of global Co2 emissions but what is worse is the predicted spend of at least £6 to £7 trillion needed to supposedly mitigate a tiny fraction of 0.000187% of global Co2 emissions or in the case of gas boilers shutting them all down would mitigate just 0.0000374% of global Co2 emissions. Truth be told if Zero Co2 is complete nonsense and a travesty of virtual signalling which will in every way do more harm than good to the environment. 

The CCC is not above the law and the FOI legislation requires those organisations that fall within its remit to conform to FOI legislation. The CCC’s remit is compromised by all of the data, warming such as it is, is insignificant and your sixth carbon budget cannot modify or manipulate the climate or weather of the UK or the globe. Therefore I will now generate another FOI request which will demand the CCC to identify explicitly how its sixth carbon budget will influence the UK’ s climate and weather because presumably that is the purpose of the exercise which I am sure the CCC will be only too pleased to identify, examples of questions to be asked:

  • How will the sixth carbon budget influence the UK climate
  • How will the sixth carbon budget influence the weather of the UK
  • Over what time periods will the sixth carbon budget influence climate and weather
  • Why does the CCC believe that being Zero Co2 will have any influence on the UK’s climate and weather
  • As the temperature of the UK is now the same as in 1745 why do we need a sixth carbon budget to resolve a problem that according to the Met office CET record does not exist?
  • UK warmed by 2C when Co2 was 290ppm but only 1C when Co2 was 400ppm but then warming stopped whilst Co2 was rising, CCC needs to explain why and how a sixth carbon budget will resolve this issue
  • Why is the CCC so evasive and dishonest and if science is the issue why doesn’t the CCC abide by the science?

How does the CCC calculate that mitigating a miniscule 0.000187% or an even more miniscule 0.0000374% of Co2 emissions will have an influence on the UK’s weather or climate when China and India are building 1400 new coal fired stations?

alastair gray
Reply to  David Roger Wells
January 8, 2021 7:37 am

There is a fine Norwegian word ” Drittsekk”. Ask Ole Humlum what it means or google it. It was applied by the Norwegian environment minister in 1980 to a certain Rt. Hon. John Selwyn Gummer. who may also go under the alias Lord Deben. One feels esp. after reading your post that he should have been ennobled as Lord Drittsekk of Green Nepotism

David Roger Wells
Reply to  alastair gray
January 8, 2021 8:29 am

Excellent thought I cannot use it directly because Deben would then use it to refuse my FOI. CCC, BBC, Met Office, BEIS use every subterfuge known to humanity to avoid answering the questions in my FOI’s because they know their claims are nonsense, they know its a scam but if they know its a scam why do they persist in applying the scam, it makes no sense. Nuclear war and hypersonic weapons are a risk, another ice age is a risk but they know Co2 is not a risk because history makes it abundantly clear that it is not a risk and we cannot live without it. Are we being ruled by sheep, have the meek already inherited the earth, have genetics become so diluted that the intellectual base of the average human is unable to understand and comprehend reality and this has driven them back to rely upon their fears and beliefs. If so then we are in it right up to our necks already and the vision of Kamala Harass being in charge of the big red button really is scary.

Richard Fletcher
January 8, 2021 9:21 am

Don’t try to confuse them with the facts!

Charlie
January 8, 2021 2:24 pm

Very good letter, Mr Gray. They should be pressed for a reply.

With regard to electric cars, the HoC Science and Technology Committee produced a report that states

In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emission versions. Alongside the Government’s existing targets and policies, it must develop a strategy to stimulate a low emissions transport system, with the metrics and targets to match. This should aim to reduce the number of vehicles required, for example by: promoting and improving public transport; reducing its cost relative to private transport; encouraging vehicle usership in place of ownership; and encouraging and supporting increased levels of walking and cycling. The Government should commit to ensuring that the annual increase in fuel duty should never be lower than the average increase in rail or bus fares.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1454/1454.pdfB

Page 70. See also page 65 for the rare earth metals problem.

But for the moment, the government is pretending we’ll all be getting electric cars.

Phil's Dad
January 8, 2021 6:22 pm

Mr Grey,

Anne-Marie Trevelyan is now Energy Minister, you might want to resend.
I would take out the last 6 paragraphs though.
You can be sure it will be binned if you start out by insulting them (even if well deserved).

Alastair gray
Reply to  Phil's Dad
January 8, 2021 11:57 pm

Good point.anyway g had my rant .Somehow I dont think Ms T will be any more responsive. I wonder though which of the swamp creatures really drives the agenda. Is it Sir Humphrey, media, the concerned XR children of the powerful,Chinese 5th column Davos clique or even David Iykes friends the lizards

Charles Pickles
January 9, 2021 1:29 am

The picture is incomplete. The estimates of the following article needs to be added to the original Excel spreadsheet.
“The Hidden Cost of Net Zero: Rewiring the UK”, in an article first published as Briefing 48 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has with permission been re-published in the recent December Edition of the Royal Engineers Journal, the Corps’s foremost professional journal. The brief summary is here:

“The extra demand for electricity will overwhelm most domestic fuses, thus requiring homeowners to install new ones as well as circuit-breakers and new distribution boards. Most will also have to rewire between their main fuse and the distribution network. In urban areas, where most cabling is underground, this will also involve paying for a trench to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street.
In addition, increased demand along a street will mean the distribution network will need to be upgraded too. This will involve installing larger cables and replacing distribution transformers with larger ones. Most urban streets will need to be dug up. In rural areas, where electricity is normally carried on overhead cable, it may just be possible to replace the wires, but it is more likely that cabling will have to buried instead.
The cost to the country of re-wiring alone will probably exceed £200 Billion, or over £ 7,000 per household. This figure excludes the cost of new equipment, such as EV chargers, heat pumps and electric showers.” (My bold.)

I support Phil’s Dad comment on removal of the last 6 paragraphs.
//:0

%d bloggers like this: