Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
MAY 18, 2021
By Paul Homewood
Could somebody please tell me which planet McGrath And Harrabin are on?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57149059
Do the pair really think that the rest of the world is going to pay the slightest notice of this edict from the IEA?
Still, credit where it’s due: at least Harrabin is now actually admitting that the alternatives to gas are horribly expensive, as well as highly impractical.
Meanwhile in other news, Germany is making it totally clear that it intends to carry on using coal power until 2038, and Russian gas for much longer:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday (15 May) rejected calls to bring forward the country’s exit date for coal in power generation, currently set at 2038.
“Those affected need some reliability on the path to climate neutrality,” said Merkel. “I don’t want to unravel this again after one year.”
The German coal phase-out law was agreed in July 2020 – 18 months after the country’s coal exit commission recommended that coal-fired power generation should be ended by 2038 at the latest.
But the phase-out is much later than in many EU countries. Most have a phase-out date of 2030 or before while others, like Belgium and Austria, have already ditched coal from their energy mixes.
The Paris Agreement also calls for developed countries to have ditched coal by 2030 – eight years before Germany’s current target.
BERLIN, May 17. /TASS/. Germany’s Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) has authorized the laying of pipes for Nord Stream 2 in German waters, but the construction may follow only at the end of May, the German regulator said in a statement on Monday.
https://tass.com/economy/1290641?mc_cid=565ffdf6d5&mc_eid=4961da7cb1
If even Germany is dragging its feet, I hardly think the rest of the world is going to give a toss about what the IEA have to say.
It’s happening already!
Our local very Green council in Melbourne,City of Yarra,has proposed stopping permission for any new installation of gas energy sources from 2025 after 2025!
The electricity of course will then come predominately from coal.
Ah ha. They are following China’s lead — not Biden’s … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1Iu9D5RhqQ
OMG
CO2 will help the climate
And we even have a CO2 famine. Anyone thinking otherwise needs a little CO2 therapy … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcc5-ApXFm8
Chairman Dan is displeased with your lies, Paul.
Please kneel near your front door with your hands behind your head and wait for Educational Officers to correct your indiscretion.
Also wear a mask.
It’s not so much that they are from a different planet, but rather from another dimension, called the “Climate Zone”.
Most of the useful idiots are from planet Libtardia, but the leadership is faking it. They spend their ill-gotten gains on planet Earth.
“Ban all new gas boilers”
Does this mean they want us to stop replacing coal fired boilers with gas fired ones?
Or even maybe wood burning ones. But if we could all just calm down and let the earth warm up enough so we can all return to the Garden of Eden — all will be good … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBQs1Jk4aUE
The Guardian – official mouthpiece of the Warmistas – today had a story saying that tin the UK, millions of homes are at risk of subsidence because the climate is going to be hotter and drier.
I recall that the story in the early 90’s was that we would be enjoying a warm, dry , Mediterranean climate by the 2020’s – looking out of my window, I wonder why that prediction has failed???
Climate crisis to put millions of British homes at risk of subsiding | Climate change | The Guardian
As I recall we were all advised by Mr Blair to paint our houses white to reflect the sun and plant drought resistant plants in the garden 😅
Interesting, but sad article by the Guardian. The reference to their “Climate Change Committee” is like a ship of fools. It’s as useless as having a “Four Seasons Committee” to try and stop seasonal change.
John, that’s funny. And true.
As they say, everyone complains about the weather, but no ones does anything about it. If a committee is formed and throws itself against the problem unsuccessfully for 10 or 20 years, can we conclude that literally nothing can “be done about it”?
Such a conclusion would relieve us of pressure to alter the climate and we can get on with coping. The Brits seem to have a great affinity for the Spanish coast. That place is definitely hotter and drier. They pay princely sums to enjoy it for a few weeks each year.
So, where’s the downside of global warming?
Thanks for the feedback. You gave me an idea … maybe I’ll make a video called the “Four Seasons Committee” … or something like that After all, it does affect life and property. And yes, there is no downside to global warming. In fact, if it warms enough, we may again achieve the Garden of Eden climate … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBQs1Jk4aUE
The majority of subsidence issues in the UK are a result of of leaky drains, where the old caulking has rotted away allowing water to seep from the joints, or tree roots/shrub roots have encroached towards a drain, either seeking the moisture leaking, or natural migration, towards the foundations, or worse still, foolishly building too close to such vegetation in the first place!!! It’s unusual that local subsoil conditions are the cause!!! The UKs National House Building Council has guidance on building near vegetation, & the local supervising authority can also provide historical guidance of any subsoil issues in the locality!!! All buildings crack, through movement of some kind, thermal expansion/contraction (shrinkage), poor design allowance for such movements, or poor building practice, etc. In places like the US & elsewhere where timber construction tends to dominate, timber is a naturally flexible material & can accommodate a reasonable amount of movement! In new build, plaster shrinkage is the usual cause of cracking to walls & ceilings, typically at junctions of wall/ceiling, etc! Having said all this, when we had the drought back in the 1970s, we were told that water restrictions had to remain in place because the reservoirs were still not full, & it would have to rain from September to November (correct me somebody if necessary), as advised by the Minister for drought, Dennis Howells, which being the UK, it promptly did so!!!!! I recall seeing a video made by the old Thames Water Authority, all about how wonderful they were in coping with drought, unfortunately it was made after the drought, & it showed workmen walking around tramping in thick wet mud wearing wellington boots & thick woollen donkey jackets!!! 😉
Forgot to say, after the drought had finished, a few years later there was a small increase in subsidence issues due to the soil recovering from dry conditions & “normalising”, but it was several years later that this occurred!!!
Nicely done!
Mark
If you could just leave your details with the desk our friendly operatives will be around your home within 24 hours to have a constructive chat about your challenging position on planet destroying fossil fuels.
Taken literally, that means you would be breaking the law if you or any business boils water (or milk or soup or any other liquid) over a propane or natural gas flame.
Same would be true if you switched over to a gaseous hydrogen fuel supply line . . . which I am confident will never happen due technology and safety issues.
Question about hydrogen as a fuel. The article asserts that burning hydrogen is emission free, but would not it actually produce water (oxidation of hydrogen), and as we all know, water vapor is another notorious greenhouse gas. Doesn’t seem like progress towards saving the earth to me, not that we actually need to do that.
Only if the flame is absolutely even and clean in a confined environment using pure oxygen and hydrogen sources.
Otherwise, all sorts of interesting chemical interactions occur.
John VC, yes, burning pure hydrogen in pure oxygen produces only water vapor/liquid water as a single reaction product.
And yes, water vapor—due to its broad spectral absorption bands across the LWIR range and it concentration—is the predominate GHG, far stronger overall than CO2 due to its two- to three-orders of magnitude higher concentration range in Earth’s atmosphere.
However, I cannot imagine the switch of even all of mankind’s fossil fuel energy use over to hydrogen fuel would make a significant impact on atmospheric water vapor content, give that most of this already originates from the Earth’s oceans, which comprise some 70% or so of the Earth’s total surface area.
Lastly, the devil is in the details regarding the use of the word “pure” in my first sentence, especially as regards using air instead of “pure oxygen” to combust with “pure hydrogen”, The chemical composition of air and the likely impurities in commercially-delivered hydrogen will result in a wide variety of non-water chemicals is the combustion reaction products (e.g., NOx).
Speaking of Nord Stream 2, just this week Biden signed a presidential order eliminating sanctions for companies working on Nord Stream 2.
Apparently Biden believes pipelines are only evil when they are in the US.
And the Russian are only evil when someone else is president.
SEN. CRUZ: Now, worryingly, there have been suggestions out of Moscow and out of Berlin that the Biden administration would reduce pressure and reduce efforts to stop Nord Stream 2. Can you commit to this committee today that the Biden administration will hold the line, will keep the sanctions, and will prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from being completed?
MR. BLINKEN: Two things, if I may, Senator. First of all, the president-elect strongly agrees with you that Nord Stream 2 is a bad idea and he has been very clear about that. I need to look at the actual legislation. I am determined to do whatever we can to prevent that completion, the last hundred yards, I very much agree.
Comrades Biden and Trudeau know best. Big Brother! Big Brother!
When you read “Environmental Correspondent” or similar, think “Climate Propagandist” and “Energy Imbecile”. These climate clowns have STRONG NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY.
The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.
Climate doomsters have a perfect NEGATIVE predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction, of the ~80 they have made since 1970, has FAILED TO HAPPEN.
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
To end 2020, the climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 times – at 50:50 odds for each prediction, that’s like flipping a coin 48 times and losing every time! The probability of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in 281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid.
These climate doomsters were not telling the truth – they displayed a dishonest bias in their analyses that caused these extremely improbable falsehoods, these frauds.
There is a powerful logic that says no rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they followed a corrupt agenda – in fact, they knew they were lying.
The global warming alarmists have a NO predictive track record – they have been 100% wrong about every scary climate prediction – nobody should believe them.
The radical greens have NO credibility, make that NEGATIVE credibility – their core competence is propaganda, the fabrication of false alarm.
Source:
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET
A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media
By Allan M.R. MacRae, Published May 8, 2021 UPDATE 1e
Download the WORD file
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
Improbable, but plausible, is the novel standard of law and science. One step forward, two steps backward.
Think about it:
Since ~1970, the warmists have made 48 consecutive wrong predictions to date and counting – even at “idiot odds” of 50:50, the probability of that happening is 1 in 281 trillion!
The failed predictions of the climate clowns were never plausible – they were not even credible enough to be specious! They were deliberate lies!
Global warming alarmism is the supreme scientific scam, the pinnacle of propaganda, the H-bomb of bullsh!t.
No rational honest could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long. The global warming propagandists knew they were lying – they’ve known it all along.
No rational honest person or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long. The global warming propagandists knew they were lying – they’ve known it all along.
I heard Harrabin talking about this on the radio and he said it was a surprising report as previously the IEA had been more sympathetic to the oil and gas industries.
You can’t help but wonder whether the IEA still holds that view and sees the best way of putting an end to the green blob as scaring the hell out of joe public on the expected additional costs.
Most people haven’t really thought about costs or issues apart from perhaps electric vehicles. The idea that gas central heating wouldn’t be allowed in the near future has even entered their minds.
The IEA report should be welcomed as a big and loud wake up call to the slumbering masses.
Until the slumbering masses want to replace their old gas boiler and are told the eye watering costs and disruption of the alternative then I doubt they will take any notice. In fact they are probably cheer leading the green revolution until reality hits them in the wallet and impacts on their lifestyle
.
tonyb
And you know what the result will be. People will cling to their old gas boiler until long past their date of safe operation. After a few gas explosions, there will be a mandate to replace all gas boilers immediately. Even when they are wrong and they end up killing people with their policies, they win.
Most of the current problems worldwide would be solved by simply making ALL politician’s take a IQ test, But it seems that the world is content to be governed by idiots.
And drug tests too.
It wouldn’t matter – politicians are smart, but ONLY at political games.
A demand that any legislation include a cost/benefit analysis broken down to individual households and/or tax payer would work.
Then politicians would (probably) be more constrained. After all most countries do have some process to for people to argue about and against legislation.
So, chances are people will remember who cost them money or spent their taxes frivolously. And not re-elect those politicians.
The primary flaw in Democracy is that frequently idiots make up the majority. It is aggravating, but self-correcting. They will destroy civilization to the point that it takes some intelligence to survive, and the average IQ will start to rise again.
Nooooo….then we’d only be saddled with smarter crooks.
So they want to replace natural gas with hydrogen. Burning hydrogen creates water vapor which is a much more potent GHG than CO2. Most hydrogen is made from natural gas which creates CO2 during the process. So far there is no CO2 capture when extracting hydrogen from natgas. Facts that the watermelons chose to ignore.
We need to tell them that the water vapour from burning hydrogen will increase sea level rise by a highly scientific 97%, then they might to start backing away.
What sort of genius declares that hydrogen “burns with no emissions”? Does he not know that H2O is the most powerful “greenhouse gas”? LOL
He’s even believes that we can generate all the hydrogen we need by using renewable energy.
Mindful of his audience, he’s faking being an idiot isn’t he? I don’t know what his exact agenda is, but it will almost certainly involve cash-flow in his general direction.
I doubt it, he more likely believes that CO2 drives everything. As do quite a lot of people, which may be being influenced by what’s taught to students. Take a look at this lecture presentation from an oceanography department of a college in Hawaii, specifically the first line of slide 3. No mention of water here!
https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/courses/OCN623/Spring2018/18-CO2_Alk_pH-2018post.pdf
But the great task [of shifting heating from gas…]
So Stalinesque. The great purge etc.
Do the pair really think that the rest of the world is going to pay the slightest notice of this edict
My guess is no, but their comrades have a very well placed insider to make sure the UK does. Right under the duvet in No 10, too.
Brexit is fast becoming We will [take back, er, control and] outgreen the EU with ease.
There is a CoP coming up and everyone’s going to be there from Conan the Barbarian to the Pope.
A lot of people to impress.
30 months ago I replaced the gas central heating boiler in my house with a new one ‘cos I couldn’t get spares for the old one any more. At the time I was told by the contractor “soon you won’t be allowed to do this”.
My Brother-in-Law is in the process of building a new house. They are not having a gas supply to the new house and are going to heat it with underfloor heating using an air heat pump.
We saw round the new building last W/E. Lots of insulation everywhere. I didn’t say anything ‘cos he is a nice guy and we don’t want to fall out with him, but we are curious to see how it works if next winter is as cold as the last one.
Interestingly, though, they are fitting a wood burning stove in the living room ” because a live fire is nice to look at ” and they have access to lots of free wood.
Should have explained that this is in SW Scotland.
Ayr lies farther north than Ketchikan, AK.
I replaced my aging furnace (1998) with a new, more efficient version last November. My gas consumption has dropped and my house was toasty warm all winter. Can’t say enough good things about more efficient modern upgrades, especially since winter was as cold as it normally gets around here.
“and they have access to lots of free wood”
They better start storing a bunch now , before it becomes a precious commodity !
😉
It looks like there is a hook to everything suggested to ward off climate change that happens naturally. Until a suitable energy source is found conventional energy should be used and improved. Green energy can be used if disaster is the goal.
No problem, first step is to shutoff all gas use by government buildings, university buildings and all buildings occupied by everyone calling for the stoppage of use of gas. Then shutoff the electricity all government buildings, university buildings and all buildings occupied by everyone calling for the stoppage of use of gas. Then the sewage and water. Everyone NOT calling for this moronic stupidity of ending gas use can simply move on with our lives.
And the electricity for COP26 should only be available from renewable sources after the hospitals and emergency services have had their needs covered.
Looking at the performance of wind over the past month I don’t think there would be much to spare.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
I imagine that cold suppers eaten in the dark would be the order of the day.
Maybe holding the conference at the time of the equinoctual gales would have suited them better.
Let’s see what the first half of November brings.
I can foresee a lot of hot air and virtue signalling and the UK cutting off its nose to set a good example to the rest of the world who won’t take a bit of notice and think us foolish for doing so.
If only… The self styled elite, and Griff’s owners, will ensure that they remain warm and toasty while the rest of us freeze and starve. Even you, Griff, will feel the bite of hunger when this day comes because while you think you are part of the club you are just another useful idiot. Anyone have any rope?
IIRC The Houses of Parliament and Whitehall offices have a backup system for electricity and district heating that runs on GAS.
So no chance of our legislators and Sir Humfreys getting cold in the dark.
Who blew up Parliament? And who currently proclaims him their hero? Talk about dissonance, the left is simply riddled with it. Some great British patriot needs to jam those feed valves and fry the electric substations feedings those buildings.
They caught him before he could light the fuse.
One of the co-conspiritors had sent a letter to a relative warning him to keep away from Parliament that day. The relative warned the powers-that-be and the cellars were searched where they found Guy Fawkes and the barrels of gunpowder.
It would certainly have set the party off with a bang.
And the left still proclaims him their great hero for blowing up Parliament. Kinda the point.
No, hospitals and emergency services should be fully powered by coal and gas at all times. How many nuclear powered subs does England have in service? Park them at strategic points to supply ONLY hospitals and emergency services and screw politicians into the ground if they so much as complain about it.
England doesn’t have any subs., nuclear or otherwise. Great Britain has several.
Yea, climate is weather and weather is climate and England is England. As currently led ain’t nothing great about it.
I already experienced the consequences of fooling with heating in CHINA.
When we came to do concerts the halls were unheated.
We froze, during rehearsales, coats and gloves being “de rigeur”.
1hr before the concert they slammed on the heating so the local party faithful would be comfortable and clap loudly.
Instantly the moment we walked off, they cut the heating and we went back to a freezing hotel room in a warm bus, with some crappy heater, cum aircon unit which didn’t do diddly squat.
Next morning at early breakfast there was 1 room for eating food which was warm, the rest was cool.
China has always been in advance,- let’s emulate them shall we?
Coats, hats and gloves for watching TV, with penalty points for any form of dissent?
And the holes in the floors of many restrooms don’t need flushing.
My brother-in-law has worked in China, back in the ’90s, and has regaled us with stories of how crappy the vast majority of the country is. Certain people live in luxury, the rest in what Americans would call grinding poverty. They call it middleclass.
What a great idea! We can heat our homes with buffalo chips, which not only provide heat they also add a lovely aroma to the house. In case there are no buffalo nearby you can substitute cow flops. Suggesting the retrograde of a culture is a first in humanity, as far as I know.
Reminded me of visiting Kyrgyzstan for.a month or so. Wonderful people
Central heating for the entire city of Bishkek. Fixed turn on and turn off times during the year. Too hot or too cold? Too bad. Still coping with being a former member of the Soviet Union.
Out in the country, which is beautiful and mountainous, slept in a yurt with lots of wool blankets and shyrdaks. Just before bed time, load up the stove with dried manure pies. They can be a little hard to light, but give off a surprising amount of heat. I think there’s a “three pie or four pie night” analogous to a “three-dog night” elsewhere.
The Kyrgyz people are not fans of the Chinese workers who are building their new sub-standard roads and buildings.
Have we reached peak insanity yet?
I am sure there is much more to come.
Biden has indicated support for a move to order pharmaceutical companies to hand over IP rights to all COVID-19 vaccines, at no charge.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-next-pandemic-steve-forbes
I predict that the next time we have a pandemic, no American company will make any effort to develop a vaccine.
Bold of you presume there will be American companies left by then.
Are you assuming this pandemic will end? I hear the booster trials have only begun.
In any case, after all the children and infants are vaxxed, I suppose they’ll be using the vaccines in utero prior to abortions.
Interesting.
I wonder if Fauxi will have to surrender all the IP and patents that he owns, for industries and companies that he “regulates”.
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity … and I’m not sure about the universe …” — Albert Einstein (allegedly)
No we haven’t. The UK is also calling for no new oil boilers to be installed after 2028 (wonder if they might reduce that as a ‘gesture’ at the COP) So if you live in the countryside, as I do, you either need to get a new boiler before then to assure a relatively long lifetime use or eventually install a crap heat pump and completely reinsulate your house, upgrade the radiators etc at considerable cost.
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
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 from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
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.
PARIS AGREEMENTS
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
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.
If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPEX
The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.
50% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y
100% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y
THE BIGGER CAPEX PICTURE FOR THE WORLD AND THE US
World More-Inclusive CAPEX
The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/funding-the-fight-against-global-warming/
NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-must-halve-emissions-galvanize-global-climate-action-un-chief-2021-04-19/
US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.
NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Have we ever been told how much methane will run up global temperature?
1789 – “Let them eat cake”.
2021 – “Let them burn hydrogen”.
Progress!
“hydrogen from renewables burns without any emissions”
huh?
First, that kinda implies that hydrogen NOT from renewables burns WITH emissions.
And what is H2O?
They’re also, as usual, completely ignoring the cost of producing said hydrogen, which takes more energy than it creates when burning. Or the cost of updating distribution systems. But what else is new?
They are from Planet Malthus, the 10th planet in the Kuiper Belt, in retrograde orbit. The King of this planet of only a very few subjects, known as Yahoos, is Charles, his Prime Minister Mark Carney, and verious ladies in Waiting make statements that mean what they want them to mean, no more no less.
The first mention of this planet actually turns up in in Jonathan Swifts well known report on the great explorer Gulliver. They even have an Academy with research on sunbeams from cucumbers!
Aw, come on, heat pumps work by magic.
and for free!
Do they make big ones for high rise apartment blocks?
Only peasants live in high rise apartment blocks. So they can die of the cold.
It’s traditional.
Komerade Cube,
I have fist-hand experience with my top-of-the-line Mitsubishu heat pumps.
They work fine, as long as it is not too cold outside.
Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The heat pumps last about 15 years.
They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs <R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.
The heat pumps displaced about 300 gallon of my normal space heating of about 1,000 gal
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon
My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!
The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air source heat pumps, “cold-climate” or not, at such temperatures.
I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; I am losing money.
There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
NOTE:
If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.
If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.
However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.
* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.
NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-source-heat-pumps-are-negative-in-vermont
What gets my goat is where those figures (£6,000 ~ £18,000) come from ##
My example comes from may 10 years ago when I myself fixed up a single/simple single room air-con.
It cost, retail price including tax, from a local builder’s merchant: £399
Ran off a standard (13 Amp) socket – the only dodgy part was drilling a 3 inch diameter hole (using the supplied drill-bit) through the living room wall to outside.
The refrigeration connections between the 2 parts of it were ‘Idiot Proof’
How many of those would anyone need
Certainly the living room (TV room for the sad trash & junk addicts) and main bedroom warm with small fan heaters to take the chill off anywhere/everywhere else.
So; lets say 4 of them for the typical matchbox UK home and any competent builder would take one day max to fix them up
£2 grand in toto? Fitted and working.
Mine, as they all do, worked not only as air-con but, the main reason I got it was for a heater.
It pulled in warm air. OK, it made a bit of a draught if you sat right in front of it on ‘full blast’, but the remote control could turn it down and steer it away from you.
And perfect to leave on ‘automatic’ and keep your room at a steady 17 or 18 C if you were away for a weekend or longer
Because Cold and Damp is what destroys the fabric of houses and people plus also all their clothes/furniture/toys
But is that what these monstrous hypocrites actually want aswell?
Having cold damp houses and endlessly wasted possesions means the hapless folks simply have to go out and buy more.
= yet more tax take
## I do know really, they are payoffs to the cronies – which will be almost every Member of Parliament and contemporary minister by the time this garbage becomes mandatory.
They are lining feather nests for themselves. Just check out Lord Deben for just a single example.
Climate Change is One Epic Money Grubbing Exercise for Bankrupt Western Governments, as if there was any other sort.
This can not end well – what say you Venezuela?
“Climate Change is One Epic Money Grubbing Exercise for Bankrupt Western Governments, as if there was any other sort.”
…. and the poor little abused retarded European Doom Goblin will be the last to know.
My sister has an air source heat pump in her state of the art house built 8 years ago. It is eye wateringly expensive to run despite the house being incredibly well insulated. The first indication that staying warm was going to be costly was the requirement for a 3 phase electrical supply to her home in order to run the equipment. Her previous residence a draughty old farmhouse dating back to the 16th century heated by two vintage gas boilers was much cheaper to run.
The icing on the cake was when the whole system failed when it was 5 years old – she was left without heating from the beginning of December through to March while the problem was identified and replacement parts sent from Germany. Luckily she was able to use the wood burning fireplace to stay warm over that time – says it all really !!
Reminds me of a house I owned in the DC area long ago. It was built in the mid 70’s when there was a gas shortage. So the State or local authorities implemented a rule there would be no gas supply in the neighborhood. So all these homes were built with large fuel oil storage tanks buried in the front yard. Fortunately I sold out before the tanks started leaking. Never underestimate the ability of the government to make bad decisions and impose them on you.
Natural gas is the cleanest possible way to heat a home, emitting about half the CO2 as oil burners, but also much less sulfur oxides and particulates. Coal is even dirtier than using Number 2 heating oil.
So what to do if we don’t want to live in a cold house all winter? Wear lots of sweaters and coats indoors, like Jimmy Carter suggested back in the 1970’s? It would also be possible to burn wood, which emits more particulates than oil, but using wood requires cutting down trees, which remove CO2 from the atmosphere while they are alive.
It may not be coincidence that Joe Biden and his wife met with 96-year-old Jimmy Carter recently. Biden may want to bring back “that 1970’s show” when Carter was president–malaise, waiting hours for gasoline, hyper-inflation, and the misery index. Those of us who remember the Carter presidency (1977-1980) do not want a repeat or sequel!
Green slogan/bumper sticker from the 1970s: “SPLIT WOOD NOT ATOMS.”
“So most are expected to be warmed by heat pumps….”
******
It has been my understanding that heat pumps that extract heat from the air do not work so well in colder climates like Britain. If they want to use geothermal heat pumps (which get heat from the ground), the excavation required to bury the coils could make the cost of installing geothermal heat pumps too expensive from many Britons unless the govt subsidizes it.
The safety issues with hydrogen (difficult to contain and the invisibility of the flame when burning) should give many pause before deciding to heat their homes with it.
IMHO, Roger Harrabin and company (he is the XR guy, isn’t he?) are taking Britain down the road to Hell despite his good intentions.
Close. He’s the BBC guy.
Air-to-air or air-to-water heat pumps work great in Britain. You don’t have even cold there.
Here in Finland heat pumps are the most common heating system for new houses:
Ground-source heat pumps are typical for houses bigger than 150 m2. Investment is rather large, but it provides all that heat you need in any outside temperature. You only need the drilling once even if you upgrade the pump 15 years later.
Air-to-water heat pumps typically will have low COP when the temperature is under -20 celcius and basically will work with electricity only under that. These are much cheaper, since you don’t need drilling.
In older direct electricity heating buildings it is typical to install air-to-air heat pumps to lower the electricity costs of heating and to provide cooling for summer.
Our house – for example – has air-to-air heat pump in addition to direct electricity heating. Those only cost about 1500 eur/piece with installation included and provide around 5-6 KW of heating power when outside temps are around 0 celsius. With this combo our annual electricity consumption is about 30000 KWh with the cost of ~ 3000 euros. Heat pump saves around 6000-7000 kWh per year.
In Britain air-to-air heat pumps would work fine almost alone.
Here in Finland the insulation standards high and we have t-shirt temperature inside even if outside temp is -25 celsius.
Ironically, the push to ban any natural gas expansion will sabotage the econazis climate agenda. Panels, turbines, batteries and hydrogen, and all the other unicorn tech, are not ready to take over ( if ever) and a continent wide screw up like what happened because of green power in Texas will kill unreliable green energy plans for good.
Defund the IEA for its cruelty and climate war crimes.
Jimmy Carter energy policy and inflation returns with a vengeance.
When they came for coal I didn’t speak out, because I didn’t use coal in my home.
When they came for gas I didn’t speak out, because gas I was told wasn’t green.
When they came for oil I didn’t speak out, because Big Oil were clearly wrong.
When they came for my candles I didn’t speak out, cause it was freezing in my home and talking wasted body heat.
Slow cuts and compromises, kids. Inches and miles.
How inefficient of them… Typical polecat politicians.
California cities are passing new building codes now that eliminate natural gas plumbing in new construction and mandate all electric heating. At the same time they are closing the one and only nuclear power plant, which provides 10% of the state’s power.
Harriban seems to believe that the UK’s natural gas distribution system can be simply converted to hydrogen. He seems to be forgetting about hydrogen embrittelment and hydrogen blistering of certain steels. The entire system would need to be re-engineered to determine whether or not it could be used for hydrogen.
Another issue with using hydrogen in lieu of natural gas is safety. Hydrogen has a very wide explosive range in air compared to natural gas. A hydrogen flame in air burns with a very pale flame. It is visible in darkness, but in daylight a hydrogen flame is essentially invisible. Another characteristic of a hydrogen flame is that it does not produce infrared radiation. This means that a hydrogen flame does not radiate heat. You will not feel the heat of burning hydrogen until you are in the flame.
It would be possible to covert natural gas systems to hydrogen, but it would neither be quick nor cheap.
I remember when North Sea gas was first introduced in the 1970s having the nozzles on my gas appliances replaced to cope with the different characteristics of NSGas from Town Gas.
It was done over the whole country an was a massive and expensive undertaking.
yes please do. i’ve got 60 acres of forest. and a wood stove.
If ground heat pumps extract heat from the soil, won’t that mean the soil freezes solid like permafrost? Wouldn’t that have a detrimental effect on the soil ecology?
No, it don’t do that. Ground has plenty of heat to extract.
This is already law in France.
Any new construction can not have any “fossil fuel” installations: BT2000 regulation came into force 1 jan this year.
France has lots of nuclear energy. So much they export it. Its 100% Fossil free, so at least they walk the walk while talking the talk.
Two grand for a gas boiler? I paid 560 for min, its a combi, limitless hot water and heating, and costs a quarter of electric for heating.
It is already illegal in the UK to fit a gas boiler to a new house, so this law is already in place.
But whats the point moving the emissions from the home to the power station? Only 20% of UK electric comes from renewables, about another 20% from nukes.
Utterly stupid. And any attempt to put 35 million electric cars on the road is going to completely swamp our generation and supply infrastructure.
The only solution (to the non problem of CO2) was to start building nukes a decade ago, at least ten for the UK, so have any hope of supplying enough power.
As usual, ask the two questions:-
1) Ban them where, exactly? In which countries?
2) What effect will this ban, in these countries, have on temperatures?
You will discover that the last thing anyone proposes is to ban them in China. And that the effect of the proposed action on the global total of CO2 emissions will be negligible.
Now ask another question:-
3) Why do activists always demand measures which are both impractical and useless?
For instance, converting home heating to hydrogen, when the pipelines cannot carry it, the boilers cannot burn it, and there is no supply. Converting all cars to electric, when even could it be done, the grid is not capable of supporting charging.
Hint: The impossibility of persuading decision makers to implement these demands is not a bug. Its a feature.
Its happening already.
Mrs Johnson has decreed no more gas boilers installed in the uk from 2025.
It is appalling that a conservative government is trying to kill pensioners.
I have written to my local conservative MP and he agrees that with the present plans, nuclear is the only solution.
But there is no way the bureaucracy in the uk will allow a new nuclear power station to go from nothing to commissioning in ten years. I was part of a government study on the UK’s skill readiness for nuclear, and the central premise, that we werent allowed to challenge, was that you could go from nothing to commissioning in 3 yrs. When we showed some simple present day stats, the lalalalalala we’re not listening brigade came out in force and closed it down.
The study obvioulsy concluded that we needed more studies to ensure we could build lots of nuclear in the next three years. – but the studies would need three years to prove it!
We had a gas boiler installed here in Belgium in 2019 and were told it was till 2030 only, after that electric only. And in 2024 Belgium has scheduled the closure of the nuclear plant that supplies 40% of the country’s electricity (under pressure from Germany).
The “no gas” home heating policy has “what could possibly go wrong?” written all over it like none other. Countries will either ignominiously U-turn from it, or plunge into a fiasco which will not be funny if thousands freeze to death which is eminently possible, even likely. It has the potential to bring to an end the whole climate circus.
SO lets burn Hydrogen to increase NOx emissions, and eliminate the devil gas CO2?
do I have that right?
Where’s my bill for the all the others? I want to see my bill.
The curious nature of the Green Lobby proposals.
Lets say you accept, with the Green lobby, that global warming is a real problem and has to be solved by reducing CO2 emissions. Lets say you also accept that the priority in doing this has to be decarbonizing electricity generation.
Both of which are pretty unreasonable in themselves, but carry on. Because the interesting thing is whether the resulting proposals make any sense in the terms of the movement itself.
The Green lobby then proposes to accomplish the decarbonization by moving to wind and solar generation, with perhaps some bio fuel.
The curious thing is that no-one ever makes the quantified argument that this is the best and fastest way to lower these emissions. Where are the studies showing that you get more and faster reductions from installing wind and solar than you would from installing a mixture of nuclear and gas powered generation? Or from simply installing gas powered generation?
As with many of the other demands of the warming alarmists, when you look at what they are demanding and the reasons they give for demanding it, you inevitably reach the conclusion that the means they have chosen is not the best way to their supposed objective. In fact, they are so dysfunctional that they may not even lead there at all.
There is after all plenty of evidence (from France) that installation of nuclear generation will lower emissions. There is also plenty of evidence from the US that increasing gas generation will lower emissions. There is zero evidence from anywhere that installing any amount of wind and solar will lower emissions.
So now ask yourself why the Green lobby is demanding, in the name of reducing emissions, that we do things which are certainly not the best way to lower them and probably do not even lower them at all.
Do you think it could be because the point of demanding wind and solar is not to lower emissions, its to use the demand to organize opinion around? And its a lot easier to organize around wind and solar than it is to organize around a demand for installing more combined cycle gas plants.
If your object is organization and not carbon reduction, its immaterial how effective your proposed policies are on carbon. What counts is whether they are effective in the sphere of public opinion. This is where we are at the moment. Advocating things that will have no effect on the supposed problem, and carefully not advocating things which (like reduction of emissions by China, or increased use of gas and nuclear) are both effective and essential to the supposed objective.
I would include by the way in the category of things useless in reducing emissions but quite promising as organizing vehicles the practice of declaring municipalities or regions zero carbon zones. (Or nuclear free zones for that matter).
Declare some city to be aiming for carbon neutrality. It has zero effect on global emissions. Even if hundreds or thousands of cities join in, it will still have no effect, because most of the emissions are not locally controllable, and even if they were, and even if this resulted in a decline in national emissions, the nation’s emissions are too small as a share of global emissions for it to have any effect when the Far East is increasing emissions and coal use as fast as it can.
Another similar case is the proclamations by individuals that they have lowered their carbon footprint by doing things like driving electric cars, cycling to work, turning down the thermostat.
No effect whatever on global warming. But, like wearing a hair shirt which has no effect on salvation, great as a public statement of being on the right side of the movement.