By: Admin – Climate Depot
Many Climate Ambitions Will End With 2021
In the U.K., Germany and France, leaders walk back as their plans’ exorbitant price tag becomes clear.
By Joseph C. Sternberg
It’s New Year’s resolution season, and don’t be surprised if politicians world-wide settle into the same informal pledge: Talk as little as possible about climate change in 2022. They’ve gotten a head start on that resolution, working hard at it even before Friday night’s socially distanced parties begin.
The biggest, most entertaining and also most telling climb-downs are happening in the U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in October unveiled an ambitious policy program to get Britain to net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050. It was Mr. Johnson’s public-relations coup ahead of the COP26 global climate conference he hosted in Glasgow. It also was unusual in its honesty about what such environmental ambitions will cost individual households and businesses—a point politicians usually avoid for all the obvious reasons.
Sure enough, the backtracks and U-turns began before that document was written. The most controversial component of Mr. Johnson’s net-zero boondoggle concerns an attempt to steer households away from the gas boilers on which 86% of them rely for hot water and central heating.
Mr. Johnson said in October he hopes that by 2035 the government will be able to phase out installation of new natural-gas heating units. That represents a step back from earlier plans to require carbon-efficient heat pumps in new homes as early as 2025, and the extended deadline still faces stiff opposition stemming from the high cost of heat pumps.
And “boiler-gate” is only the beginning of the reversals great and small. Among the great, count the delay to next year (at least) of a formal public-comment process for a beefed-up emissions-trading system. One reason for the holdup, the Telegraph reports, is that Mr. Johnson’s colleagues can’t agree on which corners of the economy should become newly subject to the rules—although apparently they now agree that car and home fuels should be excluded.
Among the smaller reversals, the Transport Department in November backtracked from a plan to require small businesses with parking lots on their premises to install electric-vehicle charging points. The proposed rules governing other structures such as new housing, residential conversions, and new mixed-use developments are so porous as to resemble a well-aerated Swiss cheese, with cost limitation emerging as the primary concern. This difficulty installing charging stations augurs the collapse, sooner or later, of Mr. Johnson’s announced plan to ban new internal-combustion cars by 2030.
Nor is this only a British phenomenon. Set aside the brouhaha surrounding green provisions in Democrats’ Build Back Better spending extravaganza in America. Some of the most surprising climate realism is now emerging in Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron faces a campaign for re-election in 2022, and he learned the hard way in 2018 how higher fuel prices can trigger debilitating popular protests. His solution is to double down on traditional French industrial policy, especially concerning support for nuclear power. At Mr. Macron’s behest, the European Commission in Brussels may be on the verge of including both nuclear and natural gas on a list of environmentally friendly energy sources eligible for “green investment” from governments and private investors. Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg is dismayed, but she also doesn’t need to persuade anyone to vote for her.
Even in Germany politicians are starting to change course. Households and businesses there pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe in service of former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s aggressive shift toward renewable power. German voters believe in these goals more than most other electorates, and they elected the environmentalist Green Party into the new governing coalition in September.
But even in Germany there appears to be a limit. The deal cementing the coalition between the Greens, the larger Social Democrats and the smaller Free Democrats hedges its climate commitments. A coal phase-out will happen ideally by 2030—with the newly inserted word “ideally” blunting Green ambitions by marking the whole project as tentative. Carbon neutrality will wait for 2045, if it ever comes, and more-aggressive limits on aviation and automotive emissions are missing.
The net-zero gimmick will be with us for a long while yet, alas. The green true believers (or are they bitter clingers?) are busy devising rear-guard actions by which to insulate environmentalism from real-world political pressures, not least by enlisting gullible or cynical titans of finance to do via pension-fund investment allocations what can’t be done honestly via legislation. The political class remains rhetorically wedded to its earlier foolhardy promises, and the media is too enamored of reality-detached activists such as Ms. Thunberg.
But it’s a start. First glimmer of common sense in a long time. If the European winter is nice and chilly this year, perhaps it’ll promote more clarity on what oil and gas do for maintaining civilization.
No “if”.
Last winter had an extremely late spring and very late frosts, our communal heating bills started to rise and stayed up into early summer, staying on a month longer than normal.
This early winter has been very cold – more or less continuous blizzards for a lot of Scandinavia and the Baltic states/N Russia ever since November.
People got their way and heating was turned on in September this year, a month early, because it was freezing cold with an icy easterly wind.
I have never had such large heating & electricity bills as the end of 2021… supply and demand and all the stuff the stoopid greenies don’t understand.
“People got their way and heating was turned on a month early”.
Actually, I’m glad to hear that people stood up for themselves in spite of the incessant carping of being evil for not wanting to freeze. Maybe we’re not as brainwashed as I have been fearing.
“People got their way and heating was turned on” …
That’s probably one of the scariest things I’ve ever read.
“People got their way and heating was turned on in September this year, a month early…”
I have a thermostat in my house. I decide when it gets hot or when it gets cold and to what temperature it will make the interior of my house. Nothing I’ve read in all WUWT is more frightening than that you must petition the government for permission to heat or cool your home.
If you live in a place where you think that’s normal, well, all I can is – you’ve already lost the fight.
Yet, these countries are frequently identified as locations where “socialism” works…
Sure, give the government 50%75% of salaries, then expect government to work for the people…
Nope! government is bureaucracies within bureaucracy. First it calcifies, then cements, then it entombs until overthrown governmental incompetence and unwillingness to listen to civilians.
I once worked for a company like that where the heating/cooling was switched on and off on this date and no amount of complaints from the workshop would change it, until some ‘criminals’ broke into the offices and stole all the portable heaters.
Suddenly the heating could be on again…. How strange!
James Bull
The European winter started very cold, but at the moment there is a massive jet stream kink and NW Europe is awash with warm winds from the Southern Atlantic and temperatures (centigrade) into double figures.
Compared with two weeks ago, Britain’s electricity is now dangerously nearly all coming from wind, as there is a stiff breeze everywhere…
The current ‘loopiness’ of the Northern jetstream is putting horrendously cold temperatures into Canada, and Siberia, and fabulously warm ones into the UK
Well, after being on nearly 24×7 my central heating is now down to an hour a day. Saving money is good. but it never lasts.
Right there, Mr Smith. I don’t think my CH came on at all last night. Funny how that actually creates some other problems. I usually dry my clothes in the boiler cupboard and bathroom as it gets so warm when the heating is on. But with it not coming on or just doing a brief spurt there is no warmth. The sun has all but disappeared as grey skies are in place so there is not heat in the conservatory either.
As of two minutes ago, 12:16 GMT, GB Grid shows wind providing 42.9% of total power. Yes there is a stiff breeze and I am sure all the windmills are turning briskly but it is cold and I am sure all the CH boilers are using gas at the normal rate. I hate to think of when wind will have to provide the electricity for all the heat pumps.
And don’t forget all the cars, buses, and trucks on the road. Those windmills are going to have to figure out how to spin in overtime.
Continues to be gloriously unseasonably warm in Connecticut. Go global warming!
Yes, NJ is “normal cold” which really means, not very. If the jet stream maintains its current morphology, we will have an unmemorable winter. Which is fine by me.
Well, that foolishness ended abruptly.
Welcome back to winter.
It’s sort of amazing.
We had four mild days, just slightly warmer than normal highs.
People walked around in short sleeves and noticed how mild the weather is in Virginia.
A surprising amount of them forgot the cold weeks we had in December. They only remembered December as being warm, again at temperatures just slightly warmer than normal.
January entered with a significant snow storm. We were without power for three and half days.
Heat pump, nope.
Well pump, nope.
No heat or water.
We had/have a democrat governor who, on twitter, told people stuck on I95 during a 0°F wind chill night, that a few days of sun and fourteen inches of snow will melt…
When I checked my outside thermometer, mercury not digital, our temperature was 9°F. And I confess to waiting until the sun had risen before going outside. Indoors it was cold enough already.
We opened shades when the sun was out, only a portion of the time. We closed shades when the sun disappeared. That was our heating for 3.75 days.
I set up our camping equipment for cooking. We used flashlights for light and we went to bed soon after sunset.
Fortunately, I have a cache of well charged batteries.
We checked on neighbors and shared if necessary.
I suspect a few of our newer neighbors are going to install fossil fuel backup generators this year. They didn’t enjoy their days/nights without power.
We lost a lot of trees in our yard and woods, from the 14″ of heavy wet snow.
For four days, Dominion Energy listed our power as going to be restored between 6PM-11PM.
We figured by day 2, that it was a false message.
Sure enough, on the fourth day, they listed our power as going to be restored the following day. Power was restored that evening, well after sunset.
It’s 2130 and it’s 9 degrees C in Glasgow. However, the BBC forecasts that the temperature in Glasgow at 2200 tomorrow will be zero degrees C. On Tuesday 4th, the maximum temperature forecast for Glasgow is 4 degrees C. Same on Wednesday 5th. 6 degrees C on Thursday 6th. Friday 4 degrees C with the possibility of snow.
How about 25 year plan for extensive use of natural gas over coal, followed by a 35 year plan to build out nuclear….that would be nearly doable….plus possibly give enough time to determine if ECS is really high enough to justify the rate of expenditure….
Too sensible and no money in it for the green blob, there are a lot of snouts to feed.
Only for those who have the misguided faith in a “greenhouse effect” and cannot understand how surface temperature limiting processes control earths energy balance.
Rick, not sure what you mean. If the ground at 288 K is radiating to the sky at say 270 K instead of outer space at 3 K, then there is a sizeable difference in the rate of heat loss. Which is the GHE. It’s past faith….its physics….maybe the GHE is simply not what you think it is.
The rate still must guarantee that sufficient heat is lost over 24 hours to prevent a rapid temperature rise. The uncertainty in measurements don’t allow accurate data as to whether this is happening.
Your average figures also ignores that isolation is not the same over the globe and that temps have a ^4th effect on radiation which precludes simple averaging.
….best I could do in 2 sentences, Jim….
Thanks for trying DMac. It’s almost as if the RickWills and Gormans are trolls intending to discredit skepticism by making scientifically illiterate claims.
You have already made the assumption that the reflected energy is not involved in the radiation balance with this statement. Then proceeding to use a radiation equation for the energy balance you fail.
“Ground” has little bearing on the energy balance. The energy balance is controlled by evaporation from the oceans, through temperature limiting processes due to cloud formation in response to the surface temperature. The bulk of the radiant energy reaching earth is either reflected by ice or thermalised in the system and emitted from an ice surface whether that surface is at sea level, covering the South Pole or high in the atmosphere. “Ground” or land is always a net energy loser on a global basis. Earth’s surface would be warmer if there were no land masses.
No one can explain the GHE because it is a fairy tale. It is fictional, made up nonsense. Once you start down that path you end up believing that trace gases in the atmosphere can alter the energy balance. They cannot.
Solid water (ice) is the dominant factor in earths radiation balance. It forms at 273K in the atmosphere and land but 271K on the ocean surface. It should be no surprise that thermalised energy is emitted at 270K but you cannot go into a radiation balance that involves Earth’s climate without considering the reflected portion of the sunlight. The thermalised energy is not the important factor in the temperature control process for the upper temperature limit. The amount of insolation that actually gets thermalised is limited by solid ice in the atmosphere and that varies in accordance with surface temperature.
Relating any idea of a GHE to Earth’s radiative energy balance is simply naive nonsense. You can define it how you like but it has no bearing on the radiant energy balance. Once I see concepts like ECS I know the proponent has lost the plot. CO2 plays no role in the radiative energy balance. It contributes mightily to the biosphere and that can alter local weather and the storage of energy.
That’s about the timetable, reality has a way of “coming back around”, and it will on all three counts, with a little overlap. 2020-2045: Coal to gas (with some blue hydrogen). 2035: Recognize that ECS isn’t an issue. New generation small modular will be affordable, after ending all incentives for failed W&S, and instead applying all those incentives to nuclear. Doing so will provide a nice fleet of nukes by 2070. THEN bring on the EV’s big time!
You really think we will have decent EV batteries by 2070?
For example EV batteries that are not several times heavier than a tank of petrol or diesel fuel for a given range achievable. And that can be recharged as quickly as a liquid fuel tank is refilled.
A European motor vehicle manufacturer executive described the climate hoax based EV as “over hyped”.
I believe that EV would not be manufactured without the pressure being applied to force a change from ICEV, including EU Standards revised to achieve emissions reduction targets ignoring the development costs and related profitability problems for manufacturers and high retail price sales difference between equivalent EV and ICEV that governments try to overcome using taxpayer funded subsidies, and penalising ICEV.
Free enterprise, free market system (Marxists call capitalism), allows consumers to pick winners and losers on merit.
The transition to renewable energy is another example of government intervention resulting in unforeseen consequences.
Electric cars are a 150 year old stupid idea. Why people are still toiling with it baffles me. Electric cars (apart form the odd golfcart or forklift etc.) will never amount to anything. Stillborn.
The energy density of a hydrocarbon fuel is fifty times higher than that of the best lithium ion battery. No improvement in battery efficiency will ever make up that gap.
you forgot milk floats
Why they mostly have disappeared in the UK
Servicing the whole electric fleet and delivering put such a hike on milk prices people voted with their feet and went and bought milk in the local supermarket, where tons of the stuff is offloaded by diesel trucks 24/7
You awakened a memory from a while back. It has to do with perceptions and size. This relates to cooling but is what you are touching on with batteries. One of the lab guys came to me with an idea for home cooling. The had come up with a new eutectic that could be used in a cooling mode in a house. My job was to put sanity behind the new inventions. They believed they could use an ice chest size package to cool a house. I asked what the freezing point was, and the specific heat and latent heat of melting were. From there I calculated that instead of an ice chest, they would need to add another garage to the house. As usual, I was unpopular for a while. I think too many of the green ideas would disappear if they had to actually put pen to paper to size the systems they claim we need. For example, many of the power stations I worked at were 2400 mW. Windmills are at best 5 mW. so 2400/5=480 windmills x 3 (avail)=1440 windmills plus 2400 mW of backup gas turbine generation. That is for just one station…..
Trivial edit: Should be MW (M for Mega), not mW (m for milli).
The UK plan given its political geographical and fossil reserves position, should be to frack gas on an emergency basis whilst building out an all-nuclear fleet of power stations.
Where are the people sitting in the streets, blocking traffic, and demanding nuclear power stations and fracing?
Where are the teens taking off school on Friday to demand nuclear and gas?
Politicians are unconcerned with what works or what is best for their country and its people. The small group of protesters create an outsized fuss to ‘do sumpthin’ and that allows politicians the opportunity to spend obscene sums on grand schemes with which they can reward cronies and are a source of graft and kickbacks.
All one needs to do is scream and wail about gas and nuclear louder than the greenies scream about wind and solar, and the politicians will spend obscene amounts of money on them in order to reward cronies and receive kickbacks.
Yup. Building out a massive new nuclear fleet should have started more than 20 years ago in the UK, if the govt believed their own propaganda. We currently have nothing to show.
But cheer up within 20 years, every penny that was spent so far will need to be spent again to replace worn out bird choppers.
And they sold all the UK NPP industry for peanuts then Tony liar Blair just got a knighthood for his trouble!
“How about 25 year plan…”
Or how about the governments that have proven their total incompetence & dishonesty with Covid & Climate Change just stay out of it & let the market decide what sources of energy are efficient, reliable, clean & affordable.
Things in energy were going fine until the elites became climate hysterics & shills for billionaires looking for a government guaranteed profit with “renewables”.
Let them write up their 50 year plan with the caveat that nothing changes for ten years. Every five years, push out the starting date by 5 years. (A bit like fusion power)
“Things in energy were going fine until the elites became climate hysterics & shills for billionaires looking for a government guaranteed profit with “renewables”.
Why aren’t other countries investigating this issue?
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0405/Why-is-the-Mafia-investing-in-renewable-energy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356879/Italian-mafia-turns-wind-farm-investment-launder-money-benefit-EU-subsidies.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356879/Italian-mafia-turns-wind-farm-investment-launder-money-benefit-EU-subsidies.html
Or make it results-based. When a better alternative becomes cheaper, switch. Which — shock! horror! — is what markets do.
How about the leaders follow Xi’s example and make promises to reach their ‘goals’ in 50 years or so. That should allow for common sense to get back into vogue.
The only reason I voted for Brexit was to distance the up from the insanity that is the EU energy policy. And then I find that the cockstruck buffoon in charge dumps us twice as deep in the excrement than the idiot EU..
Also, he has not come close to being honest about the exorbitant cost of his expensive and futile policies. Never was a more treacherous toad in charge and the other parties were co – architects and gleeful co-conspirators in the whole shambles.
Still Ed Davey of the Libs made a packet for himself just like Deben, Stern and others swilling at the trough
As we go into 2022 we are irretrievably stuffed as a society
UN Climate Finance czar Marc Carney, ex-Bank-of-England chief, was quite honest at COP26 – NetZero will cost $100 TRILLION. BoJo and Leyen know this, the entire financial word knows this – they read Bloomberg.
It is only the climate tango that does not comprehend finance.
100 Trillion doesn’t even come close. Fuels increase efficiencies. When one decrease efficiencies one decreases the ability to make 100 Trillion. So it becomes impossible to achieve. It’s all lunacy.
No worries! As soon as communism is in place and the kulaks are dealt with, the whole world we be able to use fossil fuels again, just like China.
100 x 10^12 / 8 X 10^9 = $12,500 per person on the planet, or about $50,000 per household…in a world in which the average family income worldwide is about $10,000…plus they are out by an order of magnitude or so, since economists use statistical analysis, so base their budget for flying to the moon on the cost to fly from NY to Amsterdam.
I suspect the whole net-zero pantomime will die a funny and predictable death as the economic headwaters ahead are brewing. The start is in the next couple of years the West needs to work out how to get supply certainty away from Russian and Chinese supply chains.
Expect a commitment to hold another COPfest in 3-4 years instead of every year “as so much was accomplished at this year’s” (sarc), then a quiet distancing from politically damaging (expensive) policies. Of course when the next COPfest eventually does roll around again, expect a plethora of empty gestures and virtue signalling in the run-up. It’s all a big con, but I don’t know who they think is buying the act.
Critical to note Carney’s Bloomberg interview at COP26. This is a $100 TRILLION question, which Sharma whimpered he could not deliver.
Why would global fiance now openly declare they need $100 TRILLION?
Simple – they are utterly and irredeemably bankrupt since the 2007 collapse. Every financial trick in the book is used up – the ship has taken on too much water under the waterline from that 2007 iceberg named Lehmann.
So the COP thing is a distraction – what they will try next to float that ship is the question. It sure looks like war is their only acceptable option, unless saner heads prevail and take WallStreet/London directly on.
“Many Climate Ambitions Will End With 2021”
I’m afraid Mr Sternberg, that is wishful thinking.
The incompetence of European bureaucrates has no limit, and there is a lot more money to be made yet from the “Green Gravy Train” before it finally pulls into the station.
Winter, for the moment, is very mild across a lot of Europe which is helping to keep the wolf from the door.
Mild? You are kidding!!!
Does a few weeks of milder weather around the Solstice in the UK or Germany make you get amnesia??!!!
How big is your Europe??
Most of the mountain massifs are on orange alert for larger snowfall for avalanche danger (skiing conditions are ideal this week!).
Europe extends from Ireland to Ural…
most of the Russian bit and Scandinavia is a big deep freeze, and we haven’t even hit the coldest weeks of the year yet.
here is our weather back home today dropping to -18C tonight..idem for St Petersburg nearby
Snow, on islands also sleet, blizzard locally.
In the afternoon possibility for precipitation decreasing. Wind is backing to southeast, south 5-12, on islands and on the coast in gusts 18 m/s, in the evening on islands veering to southwest and decreasing.
Air temperature on -2..-8,
Calm down. No I’m not kidding, look at a map.
I don’t need a map, I walk out the door at 6am and the car was solid with thick frost.
So much for your “mild EU” from the Saone / Rhone valley!
Do you ever get up in the morning or is this “warmth” we had in November in central Italy thru Nov-Dec (freezing north winds) with SNOW something from your UK fantasy land???
I don’t live in the UK, and you have a very strange take on what I actually said.
I’d cover your windscreen if I was you, it’s about to get a lot colder.
You’re in Estonia?
Isn’t that just normal winter weather?
Not now.
Can you read what is written on line 3?
Line 3?
Well if somehow you’re referring to -18, (~0F) that’s not outrageously cold from a New England point of view and I would have imagined that Estonia is colder than New England. It was -22C at my house a couple of years ago.
Well anyway what’s the fuss? It’s all weather.
The power behind the throne in the UK, Carrie Antoinette will stop Boris changing anything without permission. But some MPs are finally waking up to the cost problems if not the reliability.
Luckily it’s been mild these last few days which saves us a few quid on heating
We get more help from nature than governments
Yes …… until nature changes its mind! Coming soon to a
town near you.
might be warm in the sloppy old UK but it doesn’t have anything to do with the rest of Europe.
My heating bills have been thru the roof, back home and WHERE WE STAYED IN ITALY and without electric heating this caravan would be freezing!
UK has kept warm so far with south westerly winds. Until next Tuesday. BBC trumpeted warmest December ever etc. Didn’t mention Canada.
Our posh rightish wing Spectator mag had an article by Lord Lawson in which he said “decarbonisation will bring an unparalleled economic calamity”. Opposite however was a ramble from a NASA official explaining necessity for Net Zero and full of untruths about extreme weather events. Corrupt.
BBC report:
Five ex-ministers are among those who have written to the Sunday Telegraph arguing for a cut in environmental levies and the removal of energy taxes.
Their call follows big increases in wholesale gas prices. Experts say average bills could hit £2,000 in 2022.
The government says it is meeting suppliers and the regulator regularly to work out how to help consumers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59849731
ie. socialism “The government says it is meeting suppliers and the regulator regularly to work out how to help (consumers)” – ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL!
With the furlough scheme to pay people for doing sweet F A 60s socialism came thru the back door and became officially sanctioned bollox, then Teflon Tony got a knighthood for lying.
Knighted for services to the Crown, such as starting the Iraqi war, which Trump says was a huge mistake.
Bonbon is a NUTTER.
Do you know anything more than FA about the UK?
Simples. Start fracking. And lock up the protesters for sedition and doing the bidding of foreign princes.
EU plans to finish green investment rules for gas and nuclear next year
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-plans-finish-green-investment-rules-gas-nuclear-next-year-2021-12-20/
¨The European Commission plans to finish next year its long-awaited rules on whether to label gas and nuclear energy as climate-friendly investments under EU green finance rules, its environment policy chief said on Monday.¨
So Germany, intent on its nuclear exit, might have sit and watch as the rest go nuclear green.
The technical term for all these EU shenanigans is ¨sustainable finance taxonomy¨, which sounds like a taxidermists term for skinning the economy alive.
Yes, and the Greens in person of Habeck started protesting and telling the EU to be on the wrong path.
Reuters say they saw the EU document. Macron takes over as EU Commission President so there is only one question for Habeck : how is his French?
The problem is less the language, more the content and the idea behind 😀
L’Atome vert klingt viel besser als Grüne Kernkraft….
If I compare French with German, I prefer the first.
We already have :
haute cuisine, haute couture, haute police,
now add
haute énergie !
Yes, they are definitely high on something
Worth having a look at https://youtu.be/4uNKPDREa-Q Hydrogen Boilers, Heat Pumps & The Future of Heating video on YouTube Skill Builder site.
Hydrogen boilers. I understand the make Hindenburg has favourable reviews.
The sands beneath the foundations of the Green Empire have shifted. Cracks have appeared and become deeper and more numerous. It will take a while though for it to collapse. Patience is a virtue.
Financial reality is very like physical reality: you can ignore it for a while, but it always, always has the last word.
“The net-zero gimmick will be with us for a long while yet, alas”
I suspect so. But large UK supermarket chain, Sainsbury’s, has already altered their public virtue signalling to “net-zero in our own operations”. A sign of things to come, I think, as the inevitable walk-back begins.
So even though the skeptics (I am one) have lost the argument with the establishment, because of the substantial impediment of economics and technological feasibility, time is on our side. It will be those things that win the argument in the end, not anything that gets said here. And, of course, of economic and technological feasibility are not on our side, then we will (and we should) lose.
“not anything that gets said here”
Which has me wondering- the site claims to be the most read on climate- so I should think it has an influence. It might be nice to evaluate how much influence. How many politicians and/or their staffs read this site? Or even know about it?
I believe this site is mostly followed by skeptics many of whom just enjoy having their own beliefs and ideas repeated back to them (echo chamber). These are the people who will downrate any post which does not support the “party line” even if the content of the post is facially true. There are a few alarmists like Griff that come because they like trolling the skeptics.
There isn’t all that much of a party line here- I see lots of dissagreements- the only thing most agree on is that there is no climate crisis- nothing to get so freaked out over to spend countless trillions to fix. And, it’s a group of mostly older folks with decades of real world experience- lots of engineers who in their work had to get results- so they tend to be skeptical of wild claims. I don’t know if Griff likes the trolling- he’s trying to change opinions, with no sucess. Those who pounce on Griff do a pretty good job of deconstructing what he says. So, as a born skeptic myself- always skeptical of religion and politics- I like to view all sides before drawing conclusions- and my conclusion about this site is that I’ve learned a lot about the climate crisis skeptical perspective and I find it to be more sensible than the climate horror show. Certainly Climategate was an eye opening about how degraded the suppossed “settled science” really is and ever time I read anything about Mickey Mann, I see it in a different way than I might have if I hadn’t read comments here. Now he comes across as a total fool. I might not have seen that otherwise. And I don’t even need to mention Saint Greta and the stupidity of the MSM.
“There isn’t all that much of a party line here-
the only thing most agree on is that there is no climate crisis- nothing to get so freaked out over to spend countless trillions to fix. …. it’s a group of mostly older folks with decades of real world experience- lots of engineers who in their work had to get results”
another thumbs up from an engineer here!
Such people have usually an analytic disciplined mind, because their earning a living depends often on contradicting “consensus”, cos all consensus ever did was repeat the same stuipid mistakes without thinking why it doesn’t work.
Often our thinking totally has to be counterintuitive. doubting everything that ever came as “recieved wisdom”.
Another reason I utterly condemn Prof John Haughton and his whole futile stupid life and belief system that went with it.
Often the most so called “intelligent” turn out to be the most stupid,- manipulating and lying to justify it.
It makes me puke when I see the results it brings, especially to the vulnerable in society!
You alarmists very rarely say anything true, especially Griff. If alarmists aren’t just looking for an echo chamber then why do they not debate and try to cancel anyone who doesn’t agree with them?
Tom is not an alarmist by any measure. There are some misguided contrarians-for-the-sake-of-contrarianism who paint a cartoonish picture of skeptical science that denies the greenhouse effect and spits venom about lukewarmers. But let me remind them that the owner of this web site does not share those views.
There is “healthy” skepticism and “unhealthy” skepticism. A healthy skeptic says ”you better check your calcs before blast off in your steam powered rocket”…an unhealthy skeptic says “the world is flat anyway”. A standard climate extremist trick is to put both types in the same bucket and paint them both with an “ignorant skeptic” label to enhance their position. Cuz they know a knowledgeable “healthy skeptic” will make them look like Chicken Littles in any open forum…
“I believe this site is mostly followed by skeptics many of whom just enjoy having their own beliefs and ideas repeated back to them (echo chamber).”
I think one of the moderators posted some reader statistics not long ago, and if I remember correctly, it was said that about one million readers visited WUWT in a 30-day period.
Got those stats handly, Moderator?
J”oseph Zorzin
Reply to
Tom
January 2, 2022 4:47 am
“not anything that gets said here”
Which has me wondering- the site claims to be the most read on climate- so I should think it has an influence. It might be nice to evaluate how much influence. How many politicians and/or their staffs read this site? Or even know about it?”
Joseph, for what it’s worth, I have passed knowledge of WUWT to my [current Tory] MP. No idea if the MP reads [or understands] it, though.
Maybe other readers have done similar.
Auto.
The thing is, the Climate Kanuckleheads don’t really care about the economics, though they make a big show of appearing to, even claiming (absurdly) that “Renewables” have become cheaper. They conveniently ignore both the subsidies for Unaffordable Unreliables and the punishments of fossil fuels. Without the anti-carbon Big Lie, there would never have been the push away from fossil fuels and towards “Renewables”.
I agree that they don’t care about and often do not understand the economics. They ignore anything which contradicts their religion. It is a massive case of groupthink.
Tribalism on display. Most do not care to understand, do not want to try, even if they would be capable, which many are not.
They mostly just say hooray for our side. Sorry to say, it’s not just an alarmist thing.
“So even though the skeptics (I am one) “
When someone feels the need to tell you right off the bat that they are one, you can be certain they they are not. Move along little troll, you are fooling no one except yourself.
The single most annoying thing about climate change activists is that none will admit that there are no economic and reliable sources of green energy to be had. How can anyone believe that an array of wind turbines could be made to power a modern city of even 100,000 people? That just nuts. There is no other word.
The most dangerous delusion (because it is the easiest to believe) is in the inevitable market domination of electric cars. You really have to hand it to Elon Musk and Tesla is that they really, truly have manufactured good cars. They just haven’t manufactured cars that can be sold at a profit. Only very affluent people could consider paying at least 40 percent more for a new electric car than they would for a comparable ICE car, especially when the electric car is far less convenient and reliable than the ICE car. There just can’t ever be a significant and sustainable market for electric cars, and the safest bet is that they will turn out to be a fad. The only way to market electric cars would be for sympathetic governments either to make gasoline so expensive that operating an electric vehicle would make economic sense, or just taxi the sale of ICE cars at rates high enough to make electric car ownership a sensible economic choice. Of course, both these measures would essentially ban private ownership of motor vehicles for most people.
“especially when the electric car is far less convenient and reliable than the ICE car”
but…but… it earns immense virtue signaling points
To me the most annoying thing about climate change activist is that they can’t answer the question. WHY?? What will be the benefit of any of these absurd goals to the people paying the price.
Tesla’s vehicles are not that good. Their JD Powers performance has been less than desirable.
It’s what Colin Chapman described as vastly excess weight.
750kg of battery!
It’s more than the total weight of most LOTUS cars
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more CARBON
The humans ignore their pleas.
Good start, Joe! Maybe a small edit?
There is unrest in the forest.
There is trouble with the trees.
While the Maples want more CARBON,
Carbo-phobes reject their pleas.
Something nobody ever addresses is the cost of insuring EV’s if and when they become a larger percentage of automobiles. The problem with batteries will become a nightmare for insurance companies. If a car catches fire and burns down a structure, is the insurance going to cover the structure too? Even if it is a multi-story office building? How about in a collision, even a small one, in which the battery requires replacement? Will insurance cover the cost or simply total the auto (based on an accelerated depreciation I suspect).
These are not small issues but I have to read where they have been discussed at all. Maybe someone who currently owns an EV can enlighten me as to what their auto insurance covers.
Insurance companies can count. If you have an EV and carry liability insurance, as you must, and the incidence of EV fires and concomitant damage is higher than for other vehicles then they will raise the premiums for EV’s. However, the typical auto insurance policy liability limits would not cover, say, burning down an apartment building and killing its occupants. In this case, people would sue the insurance company, the automobile owner, and, of course, the manufacturer. I think the trial lawyers will see that everyone responsible will take appropriate action to manage risk exposure. In any case, I believe the risk is exaggerated by skeptics, but I also know it’s not nothing.
Sorry, but we sceptics just are cautious about what the true costs will be. I see you didn’t address what insurance will do when batteries must be replaced due to a relatively minor accident. What will happen when fixing a car’s body might be a few thousand but the battery costs $25,000? Do we know what the conditions are for replacing a battery? If a cell is ruptured but passes tests, and fails dramatically later, will it still be covered by insurance? Who will pay, insurance or the auto repair business?
I see a situation where lawyers will be the only ones remunerated.
In that situation, the car will be declared a total loss by the insurance company and you get a check for whatever value the company calculates based on the type of policy you have. Same as can happen with an ICE vehicle.
I see a situation where lawyers will be the only ones remunerated.
Isn’t that just about anything a lawyer gets involved in?
Tesla recalls 470,000 EV’s last week, with a 4 year warranty, a voluntary recall. If this was a simple computer program bug, a flash would do.
Is something else going on?
The UK i newspaper reported this (Jan 1st) as 356,309 2017-2020 Model 3 vehicles to address rear camera view issues and 119,009 Model S due to front storage bonnet problems. They also said “Tesla could not be reached for comment.”
The True Believers never get it that everything eventually boils down to two things: money and personal freedom to choose. Any policy that takes away either is destined to fail without a murderous dictatorship to force unpopular policies.
That is why so many of the warmunists have finally been forced to reveal their true colors as wannabe dictators. The gig is up, the People are not going to willingly give up our finances and self-determination to satisfy the True Believers.
But the idiot True Believers apparently now think that the People will willingly submit to their dictatorship …. uhhh, no we won’t.
It is like the old saying from the Cold War:
“The only difference between a self described socialist and a communist is that the communist willingly admits that socialism can only be instituted with the barrel of a gun, while socialist won’t.”
Funny, this is precisely what they did with all their treaty commitments to Germany in 1939. How did that work out for them?
People are becoming more aware of the true aims of the climate “movement”. Even bubbles pop eventually.
They’re beginning to read the room-
EU draft on financing nuclear and gas plants raises ire (msn.com)
It was always their lunar prescriptions that would bring them undone and then follows the hard questions about their settled science.
…their lunatic prescriptions…
There, fixed it for ya.
Everything has limits, even a politicians grand schemes to make changes people don’t want or need for a fraud. No one asked them to impose changes in culture and life.
The problem is not only the price tag, but also the small effect.
Depending on the model carbon avoidance measures start at roughly
A billion dollar to avoid 1/100 of a degree warming by 2100.
If you happen to believe that the high sensitivity climate models are too sensitive, the effect could easily be 10x smaller.
As this article points out, various countries have come up with measures throwing money changing their carbon budgets to net zero in wishful 20 years from now.
IMHO it is worthwhile to note that even if they would succeed not only disappearing all that money but also 100% successfully implement all those measures (highly doubtful and unparalleled), the effect on the temperature will potentially be marginal and that is not factoring in that all the production will happily be taken over by other countries less efficiently and further away from the markets..
Fossil free flying internal to Denmark https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59849898
Now when was the last flight using Hydrogen?
That ended well.
Do they have any idea an a/c must lift its own weight of fuel inc the containers to carry it.
Do they have any idea what that means?
How much energy is lost compressing hydrogen?
How much GH effect is made with water vapour?
Oh never mind!
The Danish are only famous for their bacon!
Yep, at some undetermined cost using to-be-developed technologies the citizens of Denmark will shoulder the burden and “lead the way” for world-wide FF free flight. It just takes the dreams of politicians to realize as all obstacles will fall away.
I note France plans to outlaw flights to destinations less than 2 and a half hours away by train. I wonder if that will apply to private aircraft? Any bets?
yes nothing like going from one cartel subsidised by TAX (Air FRANCE) to another (SNCF).
The plebs will have to forget trains and go by bus, from that rat infested hole called BERCY.
It was always the Macron way, shaft everyone for as much money as possible then crow on TV how many useless jobs they created by making everyone pay more! *with supposedly more choice!
I had to look it up, but the Paris territory of Bercy has a structure on the banks of the Seine that houses the Ministry of Finance (often known as Bercy) which has a dock with fastboats that are dedicated to VIP (presumably bureaucrats and crony capitalists) transportation. I agree that Bercy is probably infested with many rats.
I was, however, asserting that the jet-setting crowd would not be forced onto trains, no matter the distance involved. Politicians and the rich tend to jet short distances. At least the rich pay for their own transportation.
FYI Paris -Bercy is the miserable pick pocket and rat infested station you end up at, if you leave the equally horrible filthy noisy Victoria coach station overnight for Paris.
Not only is it difficult to get in and out of with luggage from the metro, but it lies close to the concrete monster called Paris-Bercy concert and expo venue.
If you hadn’t been to Paris you wouldn’t know, because Bercy – finance sits on the Seine practically opposite that other ugly monster the BNF.
If you want to go south by train it’s Montparnasse/Gare de Lyon which are not on the same side of the Seine, as is Orly airport.
The TGV ticket cost have been spiralling up, as has motorway Peage, and airlines, while they axed night trains 2 decades ago, forcing people to travel only by day….on the groundless EU comm basis some international tickets were not making enough money or sub’d.
You used to be able to travel overnight from Paris to Budapest/Vienna or Chiasso to Amsterdam.
It’s like every single gov intervention in travel, it’s awlays against free market and reduces choice to the consumer on the back of ever more subisdy to their favourite lobbyists..
(look at Air Baltic & LOT bail outs for proof!).
EU policy is a shit show. leading to ever low pay for working people (Polish,Ukrainian and lithuanian lorries doing all the illegal extra hours with no controls….), whil;e other special interest groups queue up with snouts in the EU/French/German sub’ing troughs.
John C.
I recently saw an article – highlighted as a Tip here at WUWT – about storing hydrogen using nano-particles of Palladium [costs more than gold] and iridium [which costs twice as much as palladium!].
Whilst this may indeed work, small scale, in a lab, I note also that the platinum group metals are kinda dense, and may not, therefore, be ideal aerospace materials, even if they do attract a few hydrogen atoms each..
But – hey, I’m just a bum boatie, and I’m sure Denmark can do better than that!
I guess unicorns must eat good Danish bacon.
Auto
I love it when reality sets in. Talk, virtue signaling, big plans, decrees, are cheap. People are starting to realize that burning down the village to save it is self defeating.
Meanwhile in the EU a row erupts between pro and anti nuclear nations about labeling nuclear power as “green” (under certain conditions) for investment purposes:
France and Germany at odds over EU proposal to classify nuclear and gas energy as ‘green’ (msn.com)
Pro nuclear are France, the Netherlands, Finland and most of Eastern Europe; anti are mainly Germany and Austria but also Spain.
I hope the French side win!
German politicians are going to look pretty stupid if nuclear power gets declared Green while German politicians are shutting down perfectly good nuclear reactors.
So German politicians are voting against making themselves look bad by opposing this Green vote.
Too late! We already see how stupid you are.
I hope the French side loses; we need crash-test dummies.
“I hope the French side win!”
That’ll be a first, usually the French surrender. /sarc
Wait until THESE exorbitant energy prices triple or quadruple to pay for 2 days worth of the minimum 7 days of back-up needed for Renewable Energy sources.
On Dec 31, 2021, Germany, on ENERGIEWENDE auto-pilot regarding wind and solar, mindlessly shut down 3 of its 6 nuclear plants
However, EU bureaucrats have finally come to their senses
They declared: “Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU”
Let us look at New England choosing nuclear
A 1,000 MW nuclear plant would produce 1000 x 8766 x 0.9 = 7.8894 billion kWh of electricity/y
15 of such plants would produce 118.3411 billion kWh of electricity/y
All of New England consumed 115 billion kWh in 2020
If 16 reactors were located on 8 sites, the land area would be 8 sites x 800 acres/site = 6,400 acres.
If South Korea were to build them (they are the best, next to China and Russia), the turnkey capital cost would be 16 x 1000 x $6 million/MW = $96 billion, spread out over 20 years, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost.
The plants would last 60 to 80 years.
Let us look at New England choosing wind and solar
Wind
If onshore wind were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about 59 billion/(8766 x 0.90 x 1000) = 7,478 three MW wind turbines would be required on 1,068 miles of PRISTINE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ridge lines, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 3 x 7478 MW x $2.5 million/MW = $56 billion, plus financing costs, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The wind turbines would last at most 25 years, i.e., 3 sets of wind turbines would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Solar
If field-mounted solar systems were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about 59 billion/(8766 x 0.14 x 1000) = 46,418 MW of panels would be required on 324,923 acres, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 46,418 MW x $3 million /MW = $139 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The solar systems would last 25 years, i.e., 3 systems would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Wind plus Solar
Total cost for wind plus solar would be 56 + 139 = $195 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
In New England, there are frequent periods with minimal wind and/or minimal solar.
WHERE WOULD THE SHORTFALL OF ELECTRICITY COME FROM?
Conclusion
It is high time the RE ignoramuses in New England finally acquire some common sense, because many $billions and years have been wasted on THEIR very expensive “global warming solutions”.
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na…
See table 5 in cost shifting URL
Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh
Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems
Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems
Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide…
“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.
“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.
Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE
Offshore Wind Systems
Denmark
installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.
National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.
European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.
Massachusetts, Connecticut
It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems
Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.
See Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
Maine
Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.
However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.
At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off…
“European
nations walk back their ‘climate ambitions’politicians protect their jobs as the exorbitant price tag becomes clear”Fixed the title.
I am in my 70’s and have lived in at least a dozen different homes in as many different states since I have been married due to 20 years in the Military and 40 years in the nuclear power industry. Purely coincidence, that all of these homes had the water heated with gas as it was never considered while looking for a home. In fact my wife did not like using a gas stove. As a result of this fact I have survived comfortably during the over two dozen electrical power outages, several of which were over two weeks long. If your HW is heated with gas, when it is below freezing you can fill up the bathtub with hot water and it will safely keep your home, if properly insulated, warm enough that an extra blanket(s) keeps you comfortable over night. No generator needed. No need to use the burners or oven to keep the home “bearable” especially using the gas stove burners. Larger home? – usually has two tubs – fill them both up (wait several hours to fill the second, third,) 100% of the heat is going into the home!
In my opinion a second source of energy in your home is a necessity in northern climates.
I sincerely hope Germany, and the other EU countries are “Mothballing” the Nuclear power plants they are shutting down. They are going to be sorry otherwise.
On Dec 31, 2021, Germany, on ENERGIEWENDE auto-pilot regarding wind and solar, mindlessly shut down 3 of its 6 nuclear plants
However, EU bureaucrats have finally come to their senses
They declared: “Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU”
Let us look at New England choosing nuclear
A 1,000 MW nuclear plant would produce 1000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.9, CF = 7.8894 billion kWh of electricity/y
15 of such plants would produce 118.3411 billion kWh of electricity/y
All of New England consumed 115 billion kWh in 2020
But, 15,000 MW would not be enough to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand.
Thus 10,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required
Plus, at least 15% reserve MW would be required, to cover scheduled and unscheduled outages.
If 16 reactors were located on 8 sites, the land area would be 8 sites x 800 acres/site = 6,400 acres.
If South Korea were to build them (they are the best, next to China and Russia), the turnkey capital cost would be 16 x 1000 MW x $6 million/MW = $96 billion, spread out over 20 years, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost.
The plants would last 60 to 80 years.
Let us look at New England choosing wind and solar
Wind
If onshore wind were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about (59 billion kWh/1000)/(8766 h/y x 0.30, CF) = 7,478 3-MW wind turbines would be required on 1,246 miles of PRISTINE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ridge lines, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 3 x 7478 MW x $2.5 million/MW = $56 billion, plus financing costs, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The wind turbines would last at most 25 years, i.e., 3 sets of wind turbines would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Solar
If field-mounted solar systems were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about
(59 billionkWh/1000)/(8766 x 0.14 x 1000) = 46,418 MW of panels would be required on 324,923 acres, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 46,418 MW x $3 million /MW = $139 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The solar systems would last 25 years, i.e., 3 systems would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Wind plus Solar
Total cost for wind and solar would be $56 b + $139 b = $195 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
All that wind + solar MW would be useless to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand, because wind + solar often is minimal in late-afternoon/early-evening.
Thus, at least 20,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required to serve the peak demand
In New England, there are frequent periods with simultaneous, minimal wind + minimal solar that last 5 to 7 days, according to weather data.
WHERE WOULD THE SHORTFALL OF ELECTRICITY COME FROM?
Conclusion
It is high time the RE ignoramuses in New England finally acquire some common sense, because many $billions and years have been already been wasted on THEIR very expensive “global warming solutions”.
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na…
See table 5 in cost-shifting URL
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH RELIABLE ELECTRICITY SERVICE IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet…
New England is an Energy Crisis Waiting to Happen
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/new-england-is-an-energy-crisis-wai…
NOTE: In 2021, the federal government proposed to subsidize the installation of 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems by 2030, just 8 years from now, which is a total impossibility, because the EU managed to install only 25,000 MW of offshore wind turbines from 1991 to 2020, or 39 years. See URLs
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Denmar…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
NOTE:
Warren Buffett Quote: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e…
Offshore Wind Systems
Denmark
installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.
National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.
European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.
Massachusetts, Connecticut
It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems
Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.
See Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
Maine
Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.
However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.
At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off…
” European nations walk back their ‘climate ambitions’ ”
No kidding!… Are they really walking back?
“At Mr. Macron’s behest, the European Commission in Brussels may be on the verge of including both nuclear and natural gas on a list of environmentally friendly energy sources eligible for “green investment” from governments and private investors.”
European Union to Declare Natural Gas, Nuclear Power ‘Green’ — Biden, Democrat Party Hardest Hit – RedState
“Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green [by the European Union] if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and replace a more-polluting fossil fuel plant, in addition to receiving a construction permit by Dec. 31, 2030, and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.”
If pure methane is burned, it releases 50 MJ of energy per kg methane. A kilowatthour is 1 kJ/s * 3600 s/hr = 3.6 MJ of energy, which could be released by burning 3.6 / 50 = 0.072 kg of methane, which would release 0.072 * 44 / 16 = 0.198 kg (198 g) of CO2. This assumes that the process is 100% efficient at converting heat to power. In order to release less than 270 g CO2 per kWh, the thermal efficiency would have to be at least 198 / 270 = 73.3%.
This is a difficult efficiency to achieve, even for a combined-cycle process, where hot, low-pressure outlet gases from a natural-gas turbine are used to make steam, which is then used to generate more power. It may be possible to reach this efficiency, but more likely there would have to be some partial capture of CO2 to keep emissions below 270 g / kWh.
It is probably a matter of time before some power companies who build combined-cycle plants do this same calculation and petition the European Union to raise its limit for a “green” natural gas plant to something like 350 g CO2 / kWh, which requires an overall efficiency of 56.6%, which is easily achievable by combined-cycle power plants.
Of course, it is no surprise that it’s French president Macron who wants nuclear power to be considered “green”, since France leads the European Union in power production by nuclear power plants, generating about 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. With Germany shutting down some of its own reactors recently, the French have started exporting their nuclear power to Germany…
This time a tiny diesel car with manual transmission is not going to get them around this multi-front energy price onslaught.
Years ago when the late lamented Christopher Booker was talking about how various pressure groups were getting involved in several government departments with the aim of pushing this nonsense. He talked about how the Environment Agency was going to reduce flood protection and defenses to allow nature to reclaim certain areas. In a letter I suggested the start with London and see how our beloved leaders liked living and working in a large area of marshland with Westminster being one of a few low lying islands.
As with so many of these virtue signaling things it’s OK till it starts affecting me and mine. It’s starting to hit these people and their families in the pocket maybe even causing deaths of loved ones (which can’t be passed of as covid) due to choosing between warmth or food.
James Bull