Myopic politicians are wilfully blind to the truth about green energy

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Excellent piece:

In June 2011, 18 months before going off to serve Her Majesty in another capacity, former energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne made a remarkable speech in which he asserted that the Government’s green policies, far from costing households, would actually save us money. “Green growth,” he said, can protect the economy by “reducing our exposure to price shocks”. Moreover, the cost of low carbon policies up to 2020 would amount to “just one per cent on the average household energy bill” – and even that assumed that we could always buy oil at “last year’s cheap rate of $80 a barrel”. If, as he expected, oil prices stayed high and gas prices rose to meet them “then our consumers will be winning hands down from our energy policy”.

To be fair to Huhne, he was not the only minister to hold this conceit. It has been a received wisdom among many in government, opposition and in the great green blob that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy would make us better off. How laughable that claim seems now.

We have had the green energy revolution which Huhne advocated. Last year the Government claimed that for the first time more of our electricity was generated by renewables than by fossil fuels (although only if you count as “renewable” the filthy practice of burning wood chips to generate electricity – an industry which Huhne himself went off to promote post-prison). Coal-fired power stations which in 2011 were still generating 31 percent of our power are now down to 2.1 percent, and will be gone for good by 2024.

But where is the green dividend? Adjusted for inflation, average household electricity bills rose by 19 percent between 2011 and 2020 – from £451 to £571 per year at 2010 prices. But that is just for starters. Far from being protected against price shocks in global energy markets, consumers are looking at their bills possibly doubling in April when the Government’s price cap is revised upwards.

As for the claim that green polices would only add one percent to our energy bills, Ofgem calculates that 25 percent of our electricity bills are now made up of social and environmental levies – ie subsidies for green energy as well as insulation schemes for low income households. We pay a further 2.5 percent on our gas bills.

It is true that the current energy crisis is a global phenomenon precipitated by rising demand from a rebounding global economy. But in Britain it has been made much worse by energy policies which for a decade and a half have doggedly pursued the objective of cutting carbon emissions without any regard to the costs. For years, Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems have all attempted to blame rising energy prices on greedy, profiteering energy companies. It never was true – deregulated gas and electricity markets have always run on tight margins – but with dozens of energy suppliers having gone bust in recent months it is an argument that has become impossible to sustain. Neither can you blame fossil fuel markets for rising bills – a barrel of crude oil costs less now than it did when Huhne made his speech, even before adjusting for consumer inflation.

We are paying more than we need be for our energy because the Government has loaded fossil fuels with carbon levies, switched electricity generation to much more expensive renewables, and deprived Britain of what could have been by now a very productive native shale gas industry. The government folded in the face of environmentalists who were determined to squash the nascent industry by ramping up fears of ‘earthquakes’ – or rather minor tremors, most of which cannot even be sensed by humans on the Earth’s surface.

Traditional oil and gas extraction, too, is being deterred by subjecting listed companies to punitive decarbonisation targets. Shell, which should have been developing the Cambo field off the Shetlands, has been driven to pursue other avenues, like providing my broadband. The result is that we are becoming ever more dependent on imported gas – shipping in refrigerated shale gas from Qatar that we could have been producing ourselves. The trouble is that in recent months energy-hungry China has been outbidding us for it, driving up prices.

Ministers love to point out that the unit cost of generating electricity from wind and solar has fallen over the past decade, but that ignores the intermittency problem. Consumers are having to pay through the nose to fire up dormant gas and coal plants to provide power at times when, as in recent weeks, the sun hasn’t been shining and the wind hasn’t been blowing. At one point in November, energy suppliers were forced to stump up £2000 per MWh for electricity – around 40 times the usual wholesale price.

Conversely, when the wind does blow we are forced to shell out to compensate wind farm-owners ordered to turn their turbines off – last year we collectively paid £282 million in so-called ‘constraint payments’ when the national grid was unable to absorb all the electricity they were producing.

We are in this position because we have built more and more wind and solar farms without properly addressing the issue of energy storage. The Government set up so-called “capacity auctions” in 2014 to try to create a market for energy storage by offering subsidies to anyone who can supply large amounts of energy at short notice. But the lucky winners have tended to be owners of gas and coal plants, with just a handful of battery installations.

Why? Because storing energy is horribly expensive. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the US puts the “levelised’ cost of storing energy in large lithium battery installations (that is taking into account capital investment and running costs over the lifetime of an installation) at $336 (£260) per MWh. That is five times as much as the usual wholesale price of electricity – and we have to pay it on top on the cost of generating electricity in the first place. There are times in winter when our wind turbines and solar panels produce next to no power for days on end, yet we only have enough storage capacity to meet 38 minutes’ worth of national electricity demand.


Where is the opposition? All that Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and Nicola Sturgeon are offering are even more expensive energy policies


But if consumers are heading for an energy shock in April when price caps are raised it is nothing compared with what is coming later. In 2026 installations of new oil boilers will be banned, followed in 2035 by new gas boilers. From then on, the only practical way to heat most homes will be in the form of electric heat pumps, which cost £10,000 a time, are more expensive to run than gas and which won’t succeed in keeping many older, less-well insulated homes warm.

Motorists, too, will be prohibited from buying new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 – forced to buy electric vehicles which currently cost around half as much again. Forget the spin that they will be on a parity with petrol and diesel cars by 2024 – that’s just another piece of Huhne-style optimism. Surging prices of rare metals needed for their batteries have already led to one Chinese manufacturer jacking up the price of electric vehicles by 20 percent this month.

With living costs creeping up on all fronts, there could not be a worse time to jack up taxes. In April, just as higher energy bills are landing on our doormats, National Insurance rates will rise by 1.5 percent. Labour did at least oppose that, but otherwise where is the opposition? All that Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and Nicola Sturgeon are offering are even more expensive energy policies. Ever desperate to make herself look more “progressive” than Westminster, Sturgeon has committed to cutting emissions by 75 percent on 1990 levels by 2030 – a target which could only be met by a massive replacement of existing domestic heating systems.

How bizarre that politicians who on one day will lecturing us on poverty, and energy poverty in particular, and on the next day will be proposing to drive up household bills to reach carbon reduction targets. The only way they can try to square this impossible circle is to pretend, like Chris Huhne did, that reaching zero carbon will actually save us money. Or by trying to dismiss the issue of cost by claiming that climate change is so serious it will kill us all unless we eliminate all carbon emissions by 2050 sharp.

Sorry, but no. As most people will correctly work out for themselves when they receive their inflated energy bills this spring, the biggest danger they face is not being fried or drowned in a slightly warmer world – it is succumbing to hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes.    

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/01/myopic-politicians-wilfully-blind-truth-green-energy/

5 25 votes
Article Rating
117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
griff
January 3, 2022 6:07 am

If we were producing shale gas, it would be selling at the Europe wide – world – price for gas. Which would not be lower than at present.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:13 am

Additional supply puts downward pressure on market prices. Did you ever pass a course in economics, micro or macro? Indeed, have you a degree of any kind, however paltry?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 3, 2022 11:19 am

You nailed it- definitive proof of just how dumb the Griff dude is.

2hotel9
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:19 am

Keep spewing lies, lie spewing liar, it is all you have.

Derg
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:20 am

More windmills and solar panels 😉

fretslider
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:21 am

We in the UK would be paying lot less, griff. You might even get a wind turbine or three out of it

Did that not occur to you, Oh Guardianista?

Of course it didn’t

Last edited 22 days ago by fretslider
Redge
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:24 am

Griff, mate, have you never heard of supply and demand?

Oh, and it’s reliable, not intermittent, which is what really counts in cold British homes.

Your comments get funnier and funnier every day. Is that your New Years Resolution?

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 11:04 am

Of course he’s heard of supply and demand. He’s constantly demanding a continuous supply of free stuff.

Tom Halla
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 6:45 am

Sarah Palin was mocked by Obama for “Drill, baby, drill”, but the US reached energy independence under Trump. It is more that the green blob wants shortages and high prices, to suit their Luddite ends.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 3, 2022 11:20 am

“the US reached energy independence under Trump”
More than makes up for his questionable personality. What counts is results.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 4:06 pm

His questionable personality is a creation of the Leftwing Media. What you see as his personality is a caricacture.

Brainwahing works if repeated often enough.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 3, 2022 4:42 pm

You’re probably right- but I don’t care what a leader’s personality is- I only care about results- I liked his foreign policies- I liked his energy policies and border policies and, unlike any other national politicians, he actually one day said he supports forestry (mostly in the context of actively managing CA forests to minimize the fire problem). I also liked the fact that he didn’t hesitate to chew out generals. Supposedly one day he sat at a table with several generals and said, “you guys can’t win wars anymore”. Of course it’s not all their fault- but some of it is. No other president would have had the balls to say that to them. They didn’t like it and worked against him.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 4, 2022 3:33 am

I agree with all of that.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 7, 2022 5:55 am

Told you so – two decades ago. People will die from the cold and the green energy disaster. I tried…

I accurately predicted the current British energy crisis in 2002 and in greater detail in 2013. January and February 2022 will be worse.

To understand the big picture, understand this:
If you live in the developed world and you suddenly lose access to cheap reliable energy, you and your family will probably not survive. When idiot politicians fool around with energy policy and try to pick winners and losers, they are playing a very dangerous game. When they base their energy policy decisions on fraudulent global warming “settled science”, they are playing a fool’s game. Either way, you lose.
– Allan MacRae, 19March2012

AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA
British Undersecretary for Energy and Climate Change, 31Oct2013
By Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.
[excerpt]
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

CORRECT CLIMATE AND ENERGY PREDICTIONS FROM 2002

In 2002 my co-authors and I published:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

I published on September 1, 2002:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

I updated my global cooling prediction in 2013:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
This global cooling is primarily solar-induced, driven by the end of very-weak Solar Cycle 24 (SC24) and the beginning of very-weak SC25, as we published in 2002.

Reference:
“SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT”
by Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 20, 2021, Update Nov. 8, 2021
https://correctpredictions.ca/

Last edited 18 days ago by Allan MacRae
Redge
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 7:36 am

Hey, Griff, mate, the EU plans to label gas and nuclear energy ‘green’

Now if they could just count the real cost of unreliables, we could all keep warm in winter

alastair gray
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 9:56 am

I’v always thought that Grffff is a bot and maybe a bit like Goldstein in 1984. A hate figure thatt we can vent our spleen at. However Real or Bot I love him.and that is possibly the most hurtful thing I can say to him

Redge
Reply to  alastair gray
January 3, 2022 9:58 am

I’d like to go for a pint with him and have a proper chat. I think he’d be surprised about how much we agree on

It would be great if he could post links to data alongside his claims. At least then he’d have more chance of converting me to the thermageddon side

Last edited 22 days ago by Redge
H.R.
Reply to  Redge
January 3, 2022 6:15 pm

Nahhhhhh…. griff just repeats the narrative of the day.

“Sell that narrative, griffy. Sell it!”

Better off taking a bot down’t pub for a pint. You could at least play Turing Test with the bot. griff? Not so much. Loses every time.


griff: [♫♪ sad trombone ♫♪] “Dangit! OK… double or nothing. I WILL pass the Turing test.”

michel
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 7:38 am

What the UK has just demonstrated is that neither gas nor wind can supply a modern grid at a reasonable and predictable price. Wind because its intermittent, gas because the intermittency of wind leads to wildly fluctuating demand and hence soaring prices when you really need it.

You cannot get there from here. You can’t even supply the present level of demand at a reasonable price and reliably by the present combination of gas and wind. So the only course is to do something completely different. And to abandon the crazed plans for doubling or tripling electricity demand by moving everyone to EVs and heat pumps.

The only solution that will work for the current level of demand is coal fired power stations in the short term, and nuclear in the longer term. And forget the proposed mass move to EVs and heat pumps. There’s just not going to be enough reliable capacity to run them on any scale any time soon.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
January 3, 2022 11:05 am

Get rid of the wind, and the wildly fluctuating demand for gas goes away.

Alba
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 7:46 am

Here’s a video that griff will really enjoy. It’s about the flooding of the River Rhine in the 1990s.

And how much did the River Rhine flood in 2021, griff?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Alba
January 3, 2022 11:25 am

And the Spring of 1984. I took the stopping train from Frankfurt to Koeln down the east side of the Rhein and the river was closed to all traffic for a month. The flood levels were so high that shipping couldn’t get under the bridges. Also, it was flowing toward the North Sea at a very good speed. In many places, the railroad is on embankments between the river and the towns, yet there was water on both sides. A very impressive flood. The Main was also flooded.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 3, 2022 4:10 pm

It flooded in 1968, too.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
January 4, 2022 5:53 am

Yes, the picturesque Rhein Valley speeds the flow northwards. I recall seeing the gardens beside the river in Koln flooded and as we travelled up alongside the river into the valley, laden barges heading upstream were barely moving due to the current.

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 7:50 am

What an idiot!

Take two countries, the UK and the USA. One is self sufficient in natural gas production the other is not.

In November one was paying one tenth the price for natural gas the other was having to pay.
Guess which one and why?

H.R.
Reply to  Alan Millar
January 3, 2022 6:54 pm

What is “Ukraine”, Alex?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 9:11 am

Griff, I believe we are in the predicament we are in because you are representative of far too many people these days.
Unable to think logically or rationally, no real knowledge, everything you say and do is base on ideology not the real world before your eyes.

Only people like you (and Justin Trudeau/mark Carney) could fight 24/7 to cut off investment from oil and gas, then when there isn’t enough oil and gas you blame the oil and gas companies.

Your stupidity is apparent, but why do you insist on pretending the rest of us are as stupid as you?
We can think, reason, and see reality.

As always, I feel pity when I read your comments

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 9:53 am

Except that our utilities would have forward bought it at low price. Also, with all of Europe producing shale gas to near self sufficiency the market would not have been so overheated. And again the tax revenue stream from UK produced gas would have flowed into the public coffers. That and not squandering every last penny on paying off Greedy Green would have enabled some real infrastructure building and paying off the horrendous price of Covid paralysis. But dont worry Kwarteng Johnson and the boys are firmly in their driving seats to drive the UK economy out of existence so you can be really happy that you to helped make it happen. Your grand- children will love you as they forage naked along the beach foraging for grubs and shellfish

MarkW
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 11:02 am

In griff’s world, supply and demand have no impact on price.

Streetcred
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2022 2:04 pm

in the socialist /communist command economy in Griff’s world, there is no supply and demand dynamic.

H.R.
Reply to  Streetcred
January 3, 2022 7:01 pm

Oh, yah. The people demand a bit of food, maybe one or two shoes, a sliver of soap, a few squares of TP, and the supply is…………. nothing.

In a Marxist society, supply and demand is all demand and NO supply.




Wait up. I forgot about those secret stores where the elites can buy anything. Don’t tell griff about those stores, though.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 11:22 am

Click ….. click …… click ….

michael hart
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 2:15 pm

griff, compare recent US gas prices with European ones. There clearly is no “world price” for gas.
http://www.city-data.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/gas_chart-21.png

George
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 3:15 pm

Wind, solar and biomass on a grand scale simply is not “doable.” Here in the U.S. the Texas crisis last winter should be a wake-up call to all who advocate for this unreliable and utterly ridiculous source of energy production should seriously examine the entire energy and grid economy. For every KW or MW of energy produced by these sources has to be back-up by an equal amount of energy generation. Coal, natural gas and nuclear are our reliable energy sources. As I sit back and look at what I read going on in the UK, Germany, Australia and elsewhere I cringe at the stupidity and lunacy of all this green energy talk. Getting back to normal seems like a fantasy anymore.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 3:59 pm

That’s pretty good, Griff. At the current moment there are 77 posts under this article, and you got 74 downvotes on your first post.

I didn’t down vote you. If I have a problems with what you say, I do what I’m doing now.

Thommo
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 5:21 pm

Why did Biden ask the oil producers to pump more oil when the petrol (gas) prices started heading north? To get the price down. More oil, oil glut, cheaper, less oil more expensive. More gas, cheaper, less gas = expensive.

observa
Reply to  griff
January 3, 2022 10:53 pm

Ross Clark details the climate changers’ gift to the poor griff-
ROSS CLARK: What DOES the green tax on your energy bill pay for? (msn.com)

You pump up unreliables and get rid of dispatchable coal power what did you think would happen to the demand and price for the alternative in dispatchable gas if you don’t go nuclear?

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2022 12:48 am

Oh Griiff, dont be daft. If we produced our own gas we would be free from short term swings in price!

Dean
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 5, 2022 12:32 am

Well not entirely, especially if you have the capacity to export gas. Most recent contracts I have seen which give domestic users access to low prices have a price mechanism which compensates producers by partially linking prices to international prices. This is needed to encourage investment which would not otherwise happen.

Dean
Reply to  griff
January 5, 2022 12:23 am

That, Griffy, is possibly the most ridiculous thing, amongst all the ridiculous things, that you have ever posted.

How have you ever managed to function in the real world?

D. J. Hawkins
January 3, 2022 6:11 am

It is a poor commentary on the state of things that I am shocked to see such common sense in print from across the Pond.

IanE
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 3, 2022 6:17 am

Sadly, those of us living in the UK know that such articles are as rare as honest politicians!

Ron Long
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
January 3, 2022 6:34 am

D. J., the biggest shock might be if President Brandon, whose Press Conference today was cancelled due to Washington DC being shut-down by a snow storm, ever reads some similar thing from the teleprompter (who writes that stuff anyway? Whoever writes it is the actual President?). I need an adult beverage.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Ron Long
January 3, 2022 7:18 am

It’s become a cliche now, but science fiction is full of stories with androids replacing presidents on camera, with the public no wiser. Perhaps we’re seeing a variation of that with President Brandon and his teleprompter? Sure, it’s Dim Bulb Joe up there reading the words, but who controls the words on the teleprompter? Like Ron burgundy in Anchorman, Biden will say whatever you put in front of him.

Ruleo
Reply to  Jeffery P
January 3, 2022 10:38 pm

Biden doesn’t even work from the Whitehouse (why? hint, it’s to bypass visitor log requirements and control media representation)

https://ibb.co/qdXsYf9

Last edited 22 days ago by Ruleo
Burgher King
Reply to  Ron Long
January 3, 2022 8:24 am

Biden is an avatar. Harris is his assistant avatar. All decisions are made by their handlers who are a clique of former Obama Administration functionaries, for the most part.

This clique of Obama functionaries has an agenda, and those people will not retreat from their agenda regardless of where the poll numbers go. In this context, the other major role Biden and Harris play is to act as anger sponges for public discontent.

The alleged discord between the Biden and Harris camps over their low public approval ratings is a smokescreen.

Leaked stories from White House insiders alleging conflict and chaos inside the Biden administration are designed to promote a false sense of optimism among the Republicans that they are a shoe-in to dominate the 2022 mid-terms.

Not so. The Dems are even now busily upgrading their vote fraud machine to steal the 2022 election cycle. They are also using Lawfare intimidation and harassment tactics to good effect in thwarting the election integrity reform movement.

How far will the Dems go to win in 2022? IMHO, we haven’t seen anything yet. Or so I think, anyway.

Steve Case
Reply to  Burgher King
January 3, 2022 8:48 am

 The Dems are even now busily upgrading their vote fraud machine to steal the 2022 election cycle.
_____________________________________________________________
I’m sure you are right.

TonyG
Reply to  Steve Case
January 3, 2022 1:59 pm

Can’t wait to see the announcements of winners with 110% of the vote.

Streetcred
Reply to  Burgher King
January 3, 2022 2:07 pm

Indeed, for the Obama functionaries their policy ratchet defies political defeat … They’ll come back again and pick up where they left off … You can see this post Trump.

fretslider
January 3, 2022 6:18 am

 Chris Huhne (and his economics pundit wife were beyond ridicule)

“Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce released from prison

Prison was a “humbling and sobering experience”, ex-cabinet minister Chris Huhne has said after his release. Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce were convicted of perverting the course of justice after she took speeding points for him. They both served two months of an eight-month sentence.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22507000

A typical greenie.

The Parliamentary dictatorship is full of……  like Huhne and Miliband.

Poverty as far as parliament is concerned is now a question of climate change morals and ethics, not the inability to be able to afford to heat one’s abode.

Last edited 22 days ago by fretslider
Kenji
Reply to  fretslider
January 3, 2022 7:37 am

So then … Mr. Huhne is a habitual speeder? Did he miss Jimmy Carter’s/Ronald Reagan’s universal 55 mph MAXIMUM speed limit … to “save” gasoline? Ohhhh … he was a speeder in his shiny new Tesla? Oh!? I guess THAT kind of speeding is OK then …? Nevermind.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Kenji
January 3, 2022 8:10 am

The 55 mph USA wide speed limit was requested by then President Nixon in 1973.

January 3, 2022 6:21 am

Over the last couple of centuries, oil was the cause for the prosperity of the world’s population growth from 1 to 8 billion. Decarbonization cannot manufacture products demanded by civilization. The Green New Deal only plans to generate intermittent electricity, but no plans to replace crude oil, the fossil fuel that is NOT used for electricity.

Wind turbines and solar panels may be able to generate intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine to decarbonize the electric grid, but those renewables cannot manufacture any of the derivatives manufactured from crude oil that are the basis of all the products used by modern society.

 

The GND will inflict irreparable harm to the supply chain of crude oil to refineries that manufacture oil products for the world’s infrastructures and it’s 8 billion people, efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change, resulting in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather related deaths? Imagine the cold, misery, and death toll under 100 percent electricity from breezes and sunshine.

 http://www.newgeography.com/content/007291-decarbonization-cannot-manufacture-products-demanded-civilization

Kenji
Reply to  Ronald Stein
January 3, 2022 7:44 am

But, but, but … we should all “consume less” energy … and “consume less” of everything! That’s the “only way we can save the planet”. The green blobbers applaud $$$$$ high prices as the economic punishment we all “need” to FORCE conservation.

And when we are all energy impoverished… we will have less money to spend on consumer goods which will deliver a killer blow to our capitalist economy (which is based on consumption). Then we can all sit in a circle, rubbing our privates as a salute to mother Gaia. As we will have nothing else to do.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Kenji
January 3, 2022 10:12 am

The only thing preventing the Marxists from taking over is the undeniable success of the free market. That’s why they push so hard to ham-string the economy every chance they get.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 3, 2022 11:18 am

There’s also the insistence many Marxists have of calling anything short of full government ownership and control of everything, capitalism.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
January 3, 2022 12:48 pm

I also love the way they insist that social services constitute socialism. Most socialist countries can’t even afford the level of social services we have in free market societies.

Graham
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 3, 2022 1:18 pm

The more I see of what is happening around the world the more I know that the real push of climate change is to socialize al the major countries of the world. (Those not all ready socialized)
The reason is that modern civilization depends on cheap plentiful energy for every one .That is a fact ,just look at all the health sand aging statistics compared with 100 years ago and also the amount of food that is now grown compared with 100 years ago.
If the greens and their followers were serious about the threat of increasing carbon dioxide they would be able to see this and they would be advocating nuclear energy .
We all know that the greens came from an anti nuclear back ground from ban the bomb days.
If the world was really facing the last chance to restrict CO2 to prevent a calamity the COP26 fiasco would have focused their minds on
“How does the world replace fossil fuels ”
If they really wanted restrict CO2 the only solution is nuclear.
They never pushed it and that is proof that they have another agenda .
Socialism
The sun is a giant nuclear reactor and our earth would have lost all the heat in its center core by now if it was not nuclear.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Graham
January 3, 2022 2:57 pm

Yes, exactly. The only thing socialism does really well is to infect naive, pliable minds with impossible goals and impractical solutions. They use every means available, especially crises, to garner support for their utopia that has never been successfully accomplished.

Streetcred
Reply to  Kenji
January 3, 2022 2:12 pm

The ‘elite’, comprising million/billionaires and bureaucrats, are positioning themselves for the world ‘hereafter’ … In more than one way 😉

Last edited 22 days ago by Streetcred
Streetcred
Reply to  Ronald Stein
January 3, 2022 2:10 pm

Hence the fake war on plastics.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Streetcred
January 3, 2022 3:02 pm

All the “wars on” agendas have been fake … used to suck revenue out of successful economies to fund failed socialist agendas (like the UN).

Ian Johnson
Reply to  Streetcred
January 4, 2022 1:47 pm

I wonder if wind turbine blades are included in the war on plastics?

2hotel9
January 3, 2022 6:21 am

These politicians know exactly what they are doing and they do not care how many people are hurt. They will continue to fill their pockets with stolen money and their homes, cars and planes will get all the petroleum products and electricity they want.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  2hotel9
January 3, 2022 6:28 am

Agreed. They know this will only harm the majority but the campaign funding & other billionaire provided goodies are all they care about.

Government in the US, Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, etc., has become malignant.

2hotel9
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
January 3, 2022 6:33 am

Leftist ideology is a cancer that kills everything it takes root in.

Jeffery P
Reply to  2hotel9
January 3, 2022 7:20 am

One of the many skills a successful politician must master is the ability to avoid any responsibility for the consequences of his/hers/their policies, laws and regulations.

Many of the them will be out of office before the damage and waste is realized. But it will be on to the next new thing by then anyone, so few will care.

Kenji
Reply to  2hotel9
January 3, 2022 7:48 am

Our government superiors haven’t lost a single shilling during all the COVID lock-downs. Their paychecks kept flowing. Their paychecks keep flowing and growing as higher taxes prop up their useless ‘make work’ jobs in the various Energy Ministries. Trust me … the State of CA has a massive bulging bureaucracy of various “eco” Departments funded by beleaguered taxpayers.

Reply to  2hotel9
January 3, 2022 8:14 am

The left almost always promotes evil agendas by wrapping them up in presumed benevolence and far too many are suckers for this endlessly repeated scam.

illegal immigration -> more voters for the party of slavery
voting right legislation -> enable and endorse election cheating
extended unemployment insurance -> put upward pressure on the minimum wage
green energy -> hold back the developed world to let the third world catch up
massive entitlement spending -> make voters dependent on big government
critical race/gender/idiot theories -> divide people for the purpose of causing conflict
no cash bail initiatives -> cause chaos to incite a Marxist revolution
woke-ism -> create a fake boundary between good and evil to hide the real boundary
self righteous indignation -> ignore the evil and focus only on the fake benevolence

Thomas
Reply to  co2isnotevil
January 3, 2022 9:00 am

Right, addressing climate change was touted as wealth redistribution, a cause that Socialists could support, but now we see it’s really just wealth destruction, a cause that only evil bastards would support.

Kenji
Reply to  Thomas
January 3, 2022 12:28 pm

Well … my massive PG&E bills and payments are lining somebody’s pockets?

Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2022 6:52 am

First they punish fossil fuels because of “carbon”, making them more expensive. Then they subsidize “green” energy. Double whammy time. Then they crow about how much “cheaper” “green energy” is. You have to be wilfully blind, deaf, dumb, and have clothespins on your nose to not know what is happening.

Kenji
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2022 7:59 am

But, but, but … my own economic suffering is a small penance to pay for “saving the planet”. Right? The average schlub has been conditioned to believe that energy poverty is a “green virtue”. Hence, there will be no outcry, or political correction of policy until it’s entirely too late to save our culture and society. Yes … the public has a religious fervor toward their own suffering. Think of it as a green Cilice worn by the eco-virtuous. The public are wearing their energy poverty as a hair-shirt to Gaia

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 3, 2022 7:22 am

Phasing out oil is bad news for whales.

Thomas
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 3, 2022 9:02 am

Good point! Petroleum saved the whales.

chris shaw
Reply to  Thomas
January 5, 2022 12:43 pm

and coal the european forests… just ask Alex Epstein- of Human Flourishing and Fossil Fuels

Olen
January 3, 2022 8:31 am

Easy to turn a blind eye when there is personal wealth to be made. The point is green energy is a disaster and saving the world has nothing to do with it.

CO2isLife
January 3, 2022 9:50 am

Politicians get X# of Tax Dollars and are trusted to spend those Tax Dollars wisely. Pouring money down a Green Energy Rat Hole isn’t a wise use of Tax Payer Dollars.

Better Uses of those Tax Dollars would be:
1) A National School Choice Program
2) Nuclear Fusion Research
3) Real Infrastructure
4) Drug Research
5) Tax Credits for the Poor to fund their Retirement Plans
6) Build new Hospitals
7) Broad-Based Tax Cuts
8) Expanded Child Tax Credits
9) Countless other better ideas

Once you start about better uses for those tax dollars, the more Folly Green Energy becomes. Unfortunately, the Poor that make up the Democratic Base doesn’t have Republicans courting their votes, and the Democrats have no reason to improve the lives of the Poor.

Martin Pinder
January 3, 2022 10:17 am

It is indeed an excellent article.

Dave Fair
January 3, 2022 10:41 am

Please realize that the price increases are scheduled for April when personal energy demand is low. It hides the true shock until the following winter when the greedy corporations can be blamed, the price cap having then been forgotten.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 4, 2022 11:10 am

You are correct, the Canadian Federal Carbon Tax goes up to $40/ tonne April 1,2022, up from $30/ tonne implemented last April, up from $20/tonne the previous April, increasing until it hits $170 per tonne at some point. This is supposed to be refunded to the consumer via income tax credits, but so far I just pay more income taxes every year due to inflation bracket creep….at $40/tonne, the cost of heating my house will be about double what it was 2 years ago….Gov’t adverts says the average household will get $990 refund annually at $40/tonne, so I assume $4200 when it hits $170, except it looks like my heating bills will be about $25 K per year at that point, which would be competitive with electric resistance heating….no dummies these gov’t revenuers…

MarkW
January 3, 2022 11:02 am

It is true that the current energy crisis is a global phenomenon precipitated by rising demand from a rebounding global economy.

This is not and never has been true.

Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 11:15 am

the filthy practice of burning wood chips to generate electricity”

Bullshit- but I won’t waste another second trying to enlighten people who can’t grasp the truth on this subject. It’s bad enough I have to do it with the climatistas- who also hate the only truly green, renewable and reliable base load power- which offers, as a free bonus, plant food emissions.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 12:09 pm

I won’t waste another second…

Excellent

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
January 3, 2022 1:07 pm

unless you challenge me :-}

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 4, 2022 11:48 am

So send us your spreadsheet on when that square mile of Georgia clear-cut is carbon neutral again…including Drax’s CO2 emissions…oh, and next year’s square mile needed to fulfill the contract…and the next…
You can make a better CO2 case for cutting down the trees and burying them in a swamp.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 12:53 pm

True, wood-fired bioenergy plants are no more “dirty” than coal, and could actually be considered to be cleaner. And the whole CO2 argument is bogus, so that whole brouhaha can be sidestepped. What we are left with is, does it make economic sense, without the “green” subsidies. Maybe, but I doubt it. Drax is a great market for our wood chips, but only because that market is so screwed up that they are willing to pay the huge costs of shipping it there. The question is, can a wood-fired plant here go head-to-head with say, a NG plant? On a level playing field, most likely no, it can’t.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 3, 2022 1:14 pm

They are cleaner- wood fired biomass plants have to have smokestack precipitators or whatever you call them. As for subsidies, all forms of energy are subsidized in one way or another- along with most industries, in one way or another. We wouldn’t have airline industries if the military hadn’t spend vast $$$ on it- we wouldn’t have an auto industry if the public didn’t pay for the roads (and the airports)- we wouldn’t have a computer industry without vast military expenitures- we wouldn’t have an educational system without the vast subsidy resulting from powerful labor unions getting more than they’re worth. The coal companies don’t restore the mountain tops they blow up or the countless workers with black lung. The oil industry (world wide) depends on vast military expenditures to defend the wells in the Middle East- in past times the government(s) paid for canals, paid to conquer colonies which allowed many industries to get rich (take India for example), etc., etc. I could go on all day. So, the token subsidies for wood energy by comparison is trivial- and only partly covers for the lack of compensation that forest owners fail to get for ecosystem benefits. As for the huge cost for shipping the chips- please tell us exactly what the cost is per ton. And yes, NG is wonderful. Common sense says that the best energy system is going to be a mix- of fossil fuels, nuclear, some wood, some hydro and probably some wind and solar. Nobody has the only solution. The more the better.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 5:50 pm

Sorry, all of those historical references you mentioned didnt rely on subsidiaries. Airplanes were being designed to fly farther and faster without any help. Howard Hughes pushed them forward all by himself. Oil extraction developed perfectly fine without any need of military protection . Auto industries didn’t need paved roads to make money, more and more people were buying them before most roads were paved. Our education system was better before the mass influx of too much money. Computers might have gotten an early push from the government, but they certainly took off even faster with private companies.
Maybe burning woods chips is the only thing we can do with it, seems like it could be used in composite wood, or as mulch or as a filler in some other construction. But burning coal or gas gives us alot more energy , which is why we switched in the first place. We should be burning alot more waste instead of burying it.

Joseph Zorzin
January 3, 2022 11:16 am

To be fair to Huhne, he was not the only minister to hold this conceit.”

The fact that others are also fools- doesn’t get Huhne off the hook- so DON’T be so fair to him.

Coeur de Lion
January 3, 2022 11:55 am

Please, carbon dioxide not ‘carbon’. And let’s have more mention of the fact that CO2 doesn’t drive the weather.

Dennis
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
January 3, 2022 4:18 pm

The climate hoaxer’s constant reference to “carbon” and claims about “carbon pollution” when they are in fact referring to carbon dioxide is another example of their dishonesty.

kzb
January 3, 2022 12:07 pm

Griff is right on this one. British shale gas would be sold at the world gas price. The production rate would be so small compared to the world production rate, the effect on the world price would be negligible.

Also, Britain far more densely populated than the US, and our economy is based on a sort of property Ponzi scheme. We don’t have to do any useful work which is good, but anything that impinges negatively on house prices would be catastrophic for the wider economy.

Streetcred
Reply to  kzb
January 3, 2022 2:20 pm

Griff isn’t right in terms of his intent. If UK shale gas removed UK gas demand from the world market, the world gas spot price would drop significantly.

Alan Millar
Reply to  kzb
January 3, 2022 4:12 pm

Why wasn’t the US paying the ‘world gas price’ for using its home produced gas in November?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Alan Millar
January 4, 2022 11:24 am

North American gas is mostly stranded in the North American market. Producers are “price takers” except in very high demand situations. Many more LNG plants would be required to cause a price shift to EU levels. On this case, the potential tax on profit of gas companies does not offset the reduced income tax payable by consumers, so gov’t officials keen on the LNG market get reined in by fact-totem men-in-black pretty quickly….

michael hart
Reply to  kzb
January 3, 2022 4:21 pm

I would put it differently. For once, Griff is not 100% wrong.

As I point out up-thread, gas prices are very different in the US and Europe. There is no “world gas price”. There may be regional ones, depending on infrastructure capacity and reliability during periods of excess demand. This may also be further complicated by security of supply contracts such that a user may not have to go to the spot market in hard times. Political risks also weigh in to prices, or expected prices, etcetera

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  michael hart
January 4, 2022 4:02 am

Now we’ve left the EU is there any reason why, apart from balance of trade, the UK has to sell gas on world/European markets?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  kzb
January 4, 2022 4:00 am

I’m willing to bet a tankful of E5 petrol that market forces will have encouraged alternative suppliers to start producing natural gas and the price will fall back to more affordable levels by summer 2023, possibly with a bit of a slow or negative growth involved. Whether or not the UK foolishly doesn’t open or reopen natural gas fields.

One caveat no state intervention.

Michael in Dublin
January 3, 2022 12:22 pm

It is not only politicians but also journalists that are wilfully blind.

A South African journalist wrote this past week:
The world is set to heat by 2.4°C this century. That’s catastrophic. Rich countries are almost entirely to blame for that global heating. They aren’t taking responsibility for this, by meaningfully dropping their carbon emissions or paying poorer countries for the damage of those emissions. And the selfishness of the West’s Covid-19 response has shown how the response to the climate crisis will go.
In this context, African countries are increasingly solving their own problems

He unashamedly writes six straight falsehoods in six consecutive sentences.

The official number of African delegates to COP26 should have stunned the media. Forty countries with fifty and more delegates while there were only 12 (including an EU delegation) with similar numbers from Europe. Take two of the most impoverished countries, Zimbabwe with a population of 15 million had 129 delegates and Malawi with 20 million had 138. These had US$276 a night hotel rooms in Glasgow.

To put these obscene amounts for African delegates in perspective in Zimbabwe pensions for many are worth less than US$30 a month. The WFP (World Food Programme) is giving US$12 a month to vulnerable people in urban areas who are struggling to meet their basic food needs. For the same loaf of bread in Zimbabwe in their local currency: Jan 2019 Z$5; Jan 2020 Z$18; Jan 2021 Z$70; Dec 2021 Z$168. The official exchange rate is Z$105 = US$1

Journalists who are concerned about climate change in places like Africa and European/American politicians who pat themselves on their backs for sending foreign aid that often (usually?) benefits the elites look like sick jokes but these are not a joking matter for the impoverished and powerless Africans.

Last edited 22 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Shytot
January 3, 2022 12:47 pm

Chris Huhne ws never much good at anything – he was definitely a bad liar!
At least we have a real hockey stick now the rise in household bills v our dependency on unreliables.

We need a smiley face with ^renewables at any cost?
Nein Danke^

Maybe Josh could knock something up?

Last edited 22 days ago by Shytot
Duane
January 3, 2022 1:29 pm

Price shocks are wholly the result of imbalances in supply vs. demand, and are temporary in nature. The imbalances in supply as compared to demand result from government manipulation of markets (such as the oil embargo of 1973), or other gross shocks to the economy such as recessions, depressions, wars, and most recently a pandemic, and recoveries from same which tend to produce wild swings in demand that supply cannot possibly keep pace with in the short term.

However, gasoline is not expensive today compared to long ago. The average price of gasoline 90 years ago in the USA, in 1921, was 17 cents per gallon, while today the average price per gallon is $3.37. 1921 was long before pollution control requirements increased the cost of producing, refining, and distributing gasoline. In 1921 there were no pollution control costs, and today Federal gas taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon and the average state gas tax is 29.15 cents per gallon. Subtracting gas taxes from the total price at the pump leaves $2.89 per gallon to cover the actual cost of investment, production, refining, distribution, and marketing of gas.

The difference in consumer price index for gasoline from 1921 to 2021 applied to the 1921 price of 17 cents per gallon (a low point in prices in the middle of the Great Depression) suggests a 2021 price for gas of $2.97. Meaning today’s gasoline prices, despite the vastly higher costs of investment, production, refining, and distribution, are virtually the same as 90 years ago. At a time when people are complaining about high gasoline prices.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Duane
January 3, 2022 5:59 pm

The great depression was not happening in 1921, perhaps you mean 1931?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Duane
January 4, 2022 4:12 am

January 9th 2012 price of a barrel of crude oil $101.31, price Deceber 31 2021 $71.21 in a market operated, at least in part, by a cartel.

michael hart
January 3, 2022 2:02 pm

“In June 2011, 18 months before going off to serve Her Majesty in another capacity, former energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne…”

Ha ha! Nice one,Skippy.
“At Her Majesty’s Pleasure”. Do Americans have a similar euphemism? I can’t recall ever having heard one.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  michael hart
January 3, 2022 3:55 pm

Three hots and a cot.

markl
January 3, 2022 3:36 pm

The “renewable energy costs are now cheaper than fossil fuels” narrative is hogwash and if you believe it you aren’t paying attention to reality. And it will never be without nuclear or a new form of generation or storage for backup. Just wait in another 15 years when the wind and sun energy generators need to be replaced due to age and wear. And the more wind and sun we add the more that will need to be replaced and the costs and downtime will increase geometrically. We will be in a constant replacement cycle just to keep up and we’ll never get to stasis unless we massively over build. Engineering 101.

Dennis
Reply to  markl
January 3, 2022 4:22 pm

The people who claim “getting cheaper” never include the cost of land, the feeder transmission l ines, the back up generators or storage such as batteries.

The cost is of course everything needed to operate a commercial wind turbine or solar installation.

Remove the government-taxpayer subsidies and other power station operating costs related to intermittent grid supply from so called renewables and then do a cost-benefit analysis.

Geadmode
January 3, 2022 4:20 pm

The politicized hate for anyone who is not on their side is destructive to everyone. To try and make so many of us into ogres for using good sense, and being rational only displays their corruption.

Ed Fox
January 3, 2022 9:34 pm

Imagine you had a car. Sometimes it starts. Sometimes it doesnt. What is that car worth to you? How is that different than wind or solar.

Most people would see an unreliable car as worthless regardless of how much cheaper it is than a reliable car.

Mike
January 3, 2022 9:53 pm

Ironic that sustainable/renewable energy collectors (windmills, solar panels, etc.) need products made from non-renewable materials.

Ruleo
January 3, 2022 9:57 pm

*willfully

Matthew Sykes
January 4, 2022 12:48 am

I have been railing at my MPs for years on this, having moved back to the UK, and they still refuse to acknowledge there is a problem.

Eric Vieira
January 4, 2022 1:48 am

It’s not “willfully” blind. A lot of these people have direct financial interests in the green energy sector. That’s why data and facts alone will not suffice to stop them. Industries that suffer damages due to the intermittent energy supply shouldn’t hesitate to sue the utility companies and the Government. Only when their personal losses pile up will politicians begin to change their minds.

Ben Vorlich
January 4, 2022 3:53 am

I think that Griff must be the most successful Troll ever here, the first comment here must be one of his most successful

He has managed all this without posting a single fact in any comment.

Impressive

griff
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 4, 2022 8:24 am

The oil price is now a big driver of GB gas prices. This is because during periods of high demand in winter, Britain needs to attract flows of gas through the pipelines that connect Britain with Belgium and Norway. And to attract this gas, the GB price has to be at least as high as the gas price on mainland Europe. As the gas price in mainland Europe is largely linked to the oil price, gas prices in Britain also become dependent on the price of oil.

From UK govt agency Ofgem at:

Why are energy prices rising_factsheet_108.pdf (ofgem.gov.uk)

and still as applicable in 2021 as in 2011

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2022 10:42 am

Griff,
If you read this I posted earlier you would know that the cost of a barrel of oil is 30% lower than the January 2012 cost. For Natural Gas the cost is about 70% higher over the same period.

So the claim you make is not supported by the facts.

This data is available on the Internet so why make claims without checking?

%d bloggers like this: