Skip to content

Gummer Reveals Just How Much The Climate Change Act Will Cost Us

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood  

 

image

http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Owen-Patersons-speech-to-the-GWPF-the-CCCs-response1.pdf

 

 

There’s a few bits of the CCC response to Owen Paterson’s call to scrap the Climate Change Act which have slipped under the radar. These concern the costs of decarbonisation.

Here is what the CCC have to say:

 

image

image

 

 

1) 1 to 2% of GDP

 

UK GDP is around £1.5 trillion, so we are looking at an annual cost of £15 to 30 billion. The 2008 Climate Change Act talked of annual costs of £14.7 to 18.3 billion, albeit at 2008 prices, so it would appear that the CCC is estimating potentially much more.

The CCC claim we will be twice as rich by 2050, so will still be a lot better off. But this rather misses the point – if the economy, and in particular the industrial sector, is damaged as a result of decarbonisation, we may not get the growth they are forecasting, indeed we may get none at all.

They also ignore Paterson’s main contention, that there is no practical way, given current technology, that we can reduce emissions by 80%, without shutting down whole chunks of the economy.

 

 

2) Energy bills rising by £10/year

 

This is the usual trick that DECC employ, and is extremely disingenuous. Still, taking this logic, we can still expect our energy bills to be £150 higher by 2025. (The baseline used by CCC was 2010).

But this only represents part of the cost. Domestic users only take about 35% of the power consumed. Other sectors, such as the Public Sector, Industry, Commerce, Retail and Transport, will also have to pay higher bills, which ultimately will end up being passed on to the public.

For instance, extra costs for the public sector will need to be paid for by higher taxes or reduced services. In industry the costs will be met either through higher prices, lower wages, or worst of all lost jobs.

 

A cost per household of £150/year, (again at 2010 prices), is about £3.9 billion. As this represents only 35% of the full cost, we can pro-rata this up to £11.1 billion, or a real cost per household of £429/year.

This figure looks reasonable for the mid 2020’s. We already know that the Government has budgeted a Levy Control Framework of £7.6 billion/year by 2020 (at 2012 prices), representing the cost passed onto consumers to cover all of DECC’s support mechanisms for low-carbon generation.

[The estimate for 2015/16 is already up to £4.3 billion]

 

Based on current prices, when Hinkley Point C comes on stream in 2023, we will be looking at an annual subsidy of £1.0 billion, and there will inevitably be a large expansion in offshore wind between 2020 and 2025, as well as more nuclear capacity, as the CCC state.

Each tranche of 1GW offshore capacity means a subsidy of £275 million/year, and we will need ten times that amount for offshore to increase its share of total supply by 10%.

So it is easy seeing how the annual cost could increase to £11 billion or more by the mid 2020’s.

 

 

3) Bills expected to fall after mid 2020’s

 

This looks very dubious, and they offer no reasons for this at all in their report in 2012, that they link to.

Strike prices guaranteed for wind and other renewables are for at least 15 years, and the expansion of offshore, the most heavily subsidised sector, has barely begun. We will be seeing the cost of subsidising these increasing for many years yet, and not falling until, at the very earliest, well into the 2030’s.

As already mentioned, expansion of nuclear capacity is also planned, and the contract for Hinkley Point C has guaranteed prices for 35 years. Assuming similar contracts are offered for other plants, there will continue to be significant upward pressure on energy bills beyond 2030.

 

 

 

 

It is impossible to forecast how things will look in 2050 (when most of us will be dead anyway!). But, in the shorter term, we can all expect to be paying heavily for Ed Miliband’s folly, the 2008 Climate Change Act.

DECC Use Renewable Association Jobs Guesstimate To Justify More Renewable Subsidies!

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood  

 

(You can tell its raining today, and the dog’s bored stiff!)

 

 

I came across this by accident, from DECC’s press release last December.

 

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-investments-of-40-billion-in-renewable-electricity-to-bring-green-jobs-and-growth-to-the-uk

 

 

The statement, as I reported a week or so ago, claimed:

 

Increasing the amount of home-grown renewable energy will boost energy security, reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, and support up to 200,000 jobs by 2020.

 

 

When I scrolled to the bottom, (well it is raining), I was astonished to find this.

 

image

 

So DECC include figures of extra jobs, which are provided by the Renewable Energy Association, who would have doubtlessly exaggerated numbers in order to drum up more subsidies for its members.

Then DECC, themselves, use these numbers to justify their renewable strategy, which will pay out more, huge subsidies to the aforesaid members!

Anyone for incest?

DECC Press Release On Hinkley Point

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood 

 

hinkley-04.jpg

 

The EU have now approved the go ahead of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is now, I understand, just waiting final signing off of contracts.

 

DECC have issued a press release, which goes into a bit more detail of some of the key terms, including:

 

1) Strike Price of £89.50/MWh fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index. Price benefits from upfront reduction of £3/MWh built in on assumption that EdF will be able to share first of a kind costs of EPR reactors across Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C sites. If the final investment decision is not taken on Sizewell C, Strike Price for Hinkley Point C will be £92.50/MWh.

 

Note that these are in 2012 prices, so the latter price will already have increased to around £96/MWh at 2014 prices. With wholesale power prices around £50/MWh, this would equate to a subsidy currently of £1.03 billion/year, about £46 per household. (Assuming 80% capacity utilisation).

 

141006_Brent Crude and Wholesale

http://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/reports/56/catalyst-business-energy-market-brief-october-2014/

 

 

2) Contract difference payment duration for each reactor of 35 years. Contract term for a reactor will be reduced if that reactor does not reach its Start Date within its Target Commissioning Window.

 

As already announced, the strike price will be guaranteed for 35 years – at £1.03 billion/yr, this works out at a subsidy of £36 billion. (In addition, of course, to the market price for power received).

 

3) Arrangements whereby the Strike Price could be adjusted, upwards or downwards, in relation to operational and certain other costs (including business rates, and balancing and transmission charges) at certain fixed points (including through opex reopeners at 15 and 25 years after the start date of the first reactor…..

Arrangements whereby Hinkley Point C would be protected from being curtailed without appropriate compensation. If export of power from Hinkley Point C is curtailed by the operator of the national transmission system and NNBG receives less compensation than is available under current market arrangements it will be able to claim compensation for this difference in respect of any power it has sold on the Season Ahead market.

 

As I read this, it means that if the Grid does not take power from Hinkley, for instance, because surplus power from windfarms takes priority, Hinkley will receive full compensation.

As I have pointed out before, there should be no surprise there. There is no way EDF would spend £25 billion building the plant without a guarantee that it could run at an economic utilisation of capacity.  

Ex Energy Minister Slams UK’s Years Of Neglect

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/11174697/Energy-crisis-we-are-paying-the-price-of-power-failure.html

 

There’s a good comment piece at the Telegraph today by Brian Wilson, who was the Energy Minister in the Blair government.

It’s worth reading in full, but I am highlighting this bit:

 

Things were exacerbated by the Labour government’s refusal, from which I dissented, to allow new nuclear plants to be built. Instead, a fiction was created that imported gas and heavily subsidised renewables would fill the gap left by declining nuclear and polluting coal, which was scheduled to disappear from the scene by 2015. It was nonsense in both economic and environmental terms.

 

 

Rather says it all.

Britain’s Shrinking Power Supply

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11175700/Didcot-fire-Why-Britains-power-plants-have-closed-and-more-will-be-closing.html

 

The Telegraph have a good summary of the implications of the fire at Didcot power station.

 

Two more power plants are due to close by next winter under EU anti-pollution rules, making the UK even more vulnerable to blackouts if there are further incidents such as the Didcot fire.

Littlebrook oil plant in Kent is due to shut in March, while the remaining part of a former coal-fired Ironbridge plant in Shropshire will also be forced to close next year – despite having converted to burn “greener” biomass wood pellets.

Both are closing under an EU directive designed to phase out dirty old power plants that did not upgrade their equipment to help prevent acid rain and other forms of pollution.

The so-called Large Combustion Plant Directive has already forced the shutdown over the last two years of a series of coal plants: Kingsnorth in Kent, Didcot A in Oxfordshire, Cockenzie in East Lothian, and part of Ferrybridge in Yorkshire.

Oil-fired plants at Fawley in Hampshire and Grain in Kent have also been forced to close under the rule.

 

Read more…

NOAA Make False Claims Again

October 21, 2014

By Paul Homewood

  

image

 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

 

 

According to NOAA, last month globally was the hottest September on record, 0.04C warmer than September 2005.

They apparently know the global temperature to such an exact amount, despite having no temperature data for most of the world’s landmass.

 

 

201409

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201409.gif

 

Conveniently, of course, they forget to mention the margin of error, which is +/-0.12C.

 

image

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

 

Allowing for the margin of error, September 2014 is statistically tied with 14 of the last 18 years, as the chart below shows.

 

image

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/1/9/1880-2014

 

 

Sometimes, margins of error are misunderstood, but GISS summed it up well in their report on 2010 global temperatures.

 

Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

 

If GISS understand this, why do NOAA continue to publish false claims?

Kazakhstan & Ukraine CO2 Emissions

October 20, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.globeinternational.org/studies/legislation/climate

 

 

John Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change has claimed that many countries around the world have been copying the UK in legislating to reduce GHG emissions.

 

image

 

 

GLOBE maintain a database of the 66 countries mentioned, so let’s check out a couple of the more significant ones, Kazakhstan & Ukraine. Both are listed as Top 50 emitters.

 

Kazakhstan

image

 

The key pledge is to reduce emissions by 15% from 1992 levels, by 2020. How have they actually done so far.

 

image

 

Far from reducing CO2 emissions, Kazakhstan has been rapidly increasing them, including an astonishing 58% increase since the flagship legislation was passed in 2006.

 

This should really come as little surprise, as the “Flagship Legislation” makes a lot of woolly pretensions to quality of life and sustainability, but very little commitment to reducing GHG.

 

image

image

 

Read more…

Warm Antarctic Does Not Lead To More Sea Ice

October 20, 2014
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

There is a ridiculous theory going round, that record levels of Antarctic sea ice are the result of higher atmospheric temperatures in the region, even though temperatures have been slightly declining since 1979.

 

A check on how temperature anomalies since 1979 have correlated with maximum sea ice extent should put this crazy theory to bed once and for all.

 

image

http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html

 

 

 

There is effectively no correlation at all between temperatures and sea ice, and what there is goes the opposite way to the theory. In other words, we see the two lowest sea ice years having above average temperatures, while conversely the highest has below average temperatures.

Arctic Sea Ice Recovering Strongly

October 20, 2014
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

icecover_current

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

 

Just about a month after hitting minimum, Arctic sea ice has been growing back strongly, according to DMI.

Extent is slightly above 2005’s level and just below 2006’s for this time of year.

Julia’s Bonus

October 20, 2014
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

th

 

The UK Met Office have finally published their Annual Accounts for 2013/14. these show a bonus of £25K paid to a certain Julia Slingo, in addition to her salary of £140K and pension benefit of £55K.

 

image

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/d/q/MetOffice-AR-2014_12-6-14_web.pdf

 

Could this be the same Julia Slingo who told MP’s in 2012, that global warming was contributing to colder winters and drought?

 

image_thumb10

 

Then blamed it for wet winters?

 

image_thumb11

 

 

Read more…