By Vijay Jayaraj
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s call for aggressive action against a so-called climate crisis at the United Nations presages similar statements that surely will be made by the dangerously misinformed in the coming months and augurs disastrous energy policy.
Humanity has to “grow up” and tackle climate change, the prime minister told world leaders assembled in New York, predicting catastrophe if warnings are ignored.
“We will see desertification, drought, crop failure, and mass movements of humanity on a scale not seen before,” said Johnson, whose predictions surely will be as wrong as those of Al Gore’s visions of flooding coastlines but who will nonetheless host the U.N.’s November Conference of Parties 26 (COP26) in Glasgow.
Attending COP26 will be world leaders who want to persuade more countries to adopt the CO2 emissions goal of “Net Zero by 2050.” Key conference speakers include Pope Francis, Her Majesty Queen of England, Greta Thunberg, and Sir David Attenborough, none of whom is a climate scientist or with an academic background in the subject.
COP26 is the first major international climate conference since the Biden administration took power in the U.S., a key player in international climate politics. Biden made the U.S. rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and has vowed to make the U.S. carbon neutral by 2025 — a physical impossibility.
It is also the first climate conference to follow pandemic-induced lockdowns, which some have suggested are an opportunity to introduce restrictions on energy use. The World Economic Forum (WEF) website, for example, says that “there will be no point in rebuilding economies and lives if we sacrifice the future of the planet” by failing to have nations reduce emissions.
“Emissions fell during lockdown. Let’s keep it that way,” says the WEF, which plays a key role in shaping global, regional and industry agendas. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has stated that pandemic-like lockdowns may be needed every two years to control emissions.
Considering apocalyptic musings of world leaders like Johnson and Biden, the apparent naiveté of many COP26 attendees and the affinity of some for lockdowns, the pronouncements of the Glasgow conference are likely to be both unprecedented and immature. Whether countries follow through with conference resolutions is a subject for another day, but the proposals at COP26 will affect the future of the energy sector.
Hostility toward fossil fuels in the West is already having an adverse effect on individual access to energy and on economies in general. The U.K., which has adopted an anti-fossil fuel stance, is facing severe increases in natural gas prices.
“Wholesale gas prices have surged by 250% this year, including a 70% rise since August,” reported Sky News. This is a major blow for 22 million households that are dependent on gas for heating and cooking. In addition, gas is a key fuel for electricity generation and industrial processes.
One immediate impact could be felt by food processors, who uses carbon dioxide derived from natural gas for carbonation of drinks, refrigeration and animal slaughter. The chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association said that product could be disappearing from supermarket shelves in two weeks.
So, what led to the U.K. gas crisis? Part of the answer lies with government policy to not extract the country’s massive gas reserves, depending instead on imports.
Difficulties in U.K.’s power sector has been exacerbated by an overreliance on wind power. Wind production — usually a source of pride for the prime minister — dropped considerably during the past three weeks, requiring greater use of gas and coal.
The situation in the U.K. should be a warning to U.S. energy planners, who might face a similar situation if Biden moves ahead with his carbon-reduction proposals and replaces U.S. energy independence with a renewed dependence on imports. Additional commitments made at COP-2 can only put U.S. energy security at further risk.
In addition to instilling fear with climate alarmism, politicians are threatening an era of energy poverty for billions around the world.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“ The situation in the U.K. should be a warning to U.S. energy planners”
It should be quite clear now that energy is not what they’re planning. The Great Reset is more likely their plan.
Christopher Booker set out the forthcoming UK power generation problem as far back as the early 90’s. He stepped it up later but no one can suggest that it is a surprise.
And yet we’ve had nearly 30 years since his dire predictions and still have had sufficient power in the UK…
And they’d better implement strict measures from day one after COP 26 or XR vow to cause havoc, but only in the U.K. of course.
Why do we listen to all these people, none of whom obviously have not a scrap of information on this subject but rabbit on about as if they know something about it ??!!! Why on earth don’t they put their foot in their mouth and SHUT UP !
The ALL-IN cost of wind, solar, and battery systems is at least 2 to 4 times higher than current wholesale prices of 5 cent per kWh.
There will NEVER be any way that is going to change, if low-cost fossil fuels are even more replaced by RE idiot sources, dreamed up by wacko RE, REMAKE AMERICA extremists, who likely do not know their a…. from a hole in the ground, regarding energy systems.
EXCERPT from:
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
Any transition from fossil fuels to low-CO2 sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass, could occur only when the low-CO2 sources are: 1) abundantly available everywhere, and 2) at low-cost, say 5 to 6 c/kWh, wholesale, and 3) as reliable as fossil fuels, 24/7/365, year after year.
This article presents the all-in cost of wind, solar and battery systems in the US Northeast.
Table 1 shows the all-in cost of wind and solar are much greater than reported by the Media, etc.
Much of the cost is shifted from Owners of these systems to taxpayers and ratepayers, and added to government debts
MINIMUM ANNUAL CARRYING COST OF ANY ENERGY SYSTEM
Simplified Mortgage Method
This method can be applied to Electric Vehicles, Heat Pumps, Electric Buses, Wind Systems, Solar Systems, Battery Systems, etc.
The minimum annual carrying cost of a house, or an energy system, is “paying the mortgage”.
With regard to a house, all other costs, such as real estate taxes, heating, cooling, maintenance, etc., are in addition.
An energy system must have annual revenues = “Paying the mortgage” + “All other costs”
Any shortage of revenues must be made up by subsidies.
The less an energy system is able to “pay for itself”, the more the subsidies.
Subsidies can be reductions in the upfront turnkey capital costs
Subsidies can be reductions of some items of “All other costs”
Subsidies can be paying for the electricity production in excess of market prices
A house, after paying the mortgage, likely is worth more than in Year 1.
However, wind, solar, and battery systems have useful service lives of about 20, 25, and 15 years, respectively.
Thereafter, they still perform at lesser outputs for some time, but their financial value is near zero.
Complicated Spreadsheet Method
A more exact analysis of the economics of an energy system would involve a spreadsheet with many rows and at least 25 columns (for solar), one for each year. It would involve Present Values, Internal Rates of Return, Levelized Costs of Energy, etc.
GMP, VT-DPS, VT-PUC, etc., have such spreadsheets, as do I. They would be much too complicated to present here.
PART 1
Cost Shifting from Owners to Ratepayers and Taxpayers
The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 45%, due to subsidies. However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added, in one way or another, onto:
1) Rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers
2) Taxpayers, by means of extra taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills
3) Government budgets
4) Government debt
5) Prices of goods and services, other than electricity
If the subsidies had to be paid by Owners of wind and solar systems, the contract prices paid to Owners would need to be:
– At least 19.3 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, for large-scale solar
– At least 15.5 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, for ridge line wind. See table 1 and URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar