Skip to content

Hinkley Point “Not Essential” – Richard Black

August 27, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://news.sky.com/story/hinkley-point-not-essential-for-uk-energy-10552188

 

From Sky News:

 

A new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point is not needed for the UK to meet its energy and climate change targets, a report claims.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) argues that more wind farms and gas-fired power stations would be enough to keep the lights on, while also saving £1bn a year.

The new power infrastructure would also have to be combined with measures to manage energy demand, but the ECIU says its research shows Hinkley Point C is "not essential".

Hinkley Point C would involve French energy firm EDF building two new reactors at the existing Hinkley site, with the plan part-financed by China General Nuclear Power.

But concerns have been raised by intelligence agencies that allowing China to invest in the UK’s nuclear energy market could be a danger to national security.

ECIU director Richard Black said his organisation’s report showed there were other alternatives to avoid an energy black hole in Britain.

"Despite years of debate on Hinkley, we’re still not sure whether or not it’s going to get built – the Prime Minister is due to make a decision next month, but even if she says yes there are many other issues that could derail the project, including legal cases and EDF’s financial woes," he said.

"So we wanted to know how essential Hinkley is for the ‘energy trilemma’ – keeping the lights on whilst cutting greenhouse gas emissions and keeping costs down.

"Our conclusion is that it’s not essential; using tried and tested technologies, with nothing unproven or futuristic, Britain can meet all its targets and do so at lower cost."

The ECIU proposal would involve building four extra wind farms on top of those already scheduled for construction, combined with measures encouraging the population to use electricity more efficiently and productively.

The report claims this approach could save up to £20 per year on average household energy bills.

But EDF Energy dismissed the suggestion, saying that the alternatives presented by the report are "not credible".

"HPC’s cost is competitive with other large-scale low carbon technologies," the company said in a statement.

"It will generate electricity steadily even on foggy and still winter days across Northern Europe.

"It will play a crucial role as part of a future, flexible energy system."

http://news.sky.com/story/hinkley-point-not-essential-for-uk-energy-10552188

 

The ECIU is the outfit set up to propagate climate change propaganda, and it is funded by a series of shadowy liberal foundations in the US and Europe. It is headed by Richard Black, formerly the totally objective and unbiased Environment Correspondent at the BBC.

Hinkley is lined up to provide capacity of 3.2GW and annual output of 25.2TWh, about 7% of the UK’s supply.

Mr Black reckons that we can replace this by building an extra 7.2GW of offshore wind capacity, on top of the 5.1GW which we currently have. This would also be on top of the extra 17.4GW, which is already projected to be constructed between now and 2030.

Of course, as we know, the wind does not always blow, so he suggests that we also build 3.2GW of gas generation, to use as back up.

 

Of course, anyone with an ounce of commonsense would have suggested that we just build the gas capacity anyway, and forget about Hinkley and the heavily subsidised and inefficient windmills!

 

Currently, offshore wind contributes only 5% to UK generation.

 

image

  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-statistics

 

 

 

The full ECIU report is here:

http://eciu.net/assets/ECIU_Hinkley_What-if.compressed.pdf

The 1960 Devon Flood Story

August 27, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

S1can

 

“Bloke down the pub” sent me this book, which has apparently been knocking around his family archives.

The 32-page booklet was published both to commemorate some of the worst floods in Devon’s history, but also to raise funds for the relief fund, as the Introduction explains:

 

Scan

 

I have taken a few screenshots to give some of the flavour.

 

Read more…

Change of Fonts?

August 26, 2016

 

 

 

It has been suggested that I change my font to Tahoma. The current font is Trebuchet.

Below is a comparison of the two. I would welcome any views.

 

 

TREBUCHET

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

If we are to believe the likes of Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the Chinese Government has solemnly promised to drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, albeit rather conveniently at some undetermined point in the future. Meanwhile, Mark Carney tells us that fossil fuel reserves will soon be stranded assets.

Yet on the ground the reality is utterly different. Far from pulling back from fossil fuels, China is actively increasing development, not just at home but around the world as well.

According to this International Energy Agency report in November 2014:

Chinese national oil companies (NOCs) are the new big players on the global energy scene. In the last three years, they spent a total of USD 73 billion in upstream investments and now operate in more than 40 countries to control about 7% of worldwide crude oil output, raising alarms in some quarters about supply security and price.

 

TAHOMA

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

If we are to believe the likes of Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the Chinese Government has solemnly promised to drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, albeit rather conveniently at some undetermined point in the future. Meanwhile, Mark Carney tells us that fossil fuel reserves will soon be stranded assets.

Yet on the ground the reality is utterly different. Far from pulling back from fossil fuels, China is actively increasing development, not just at home but around the world as well.

According to this International Energy Agency report in November 2014:

Chinese national oil companies (NOCs) are the new big players on the global energy scene. In the last three years, they spent a total of USD 73 billion in upstream investments and now operate in more than 40 countries to control about 7% of worldwide crude oil output, raising alarms in some quarters about supply security and price.

China’s Global Oil Assets Growing Rapidly

August 26, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

 

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

 

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

 

Read more…

Feds Fund Scientists Who Protect The ‘Global Warming Paradigm,’ Says Report

August 26, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

 

From the Daily Caller:

 

The Obama administration has been pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into science that’s “heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change,” according to a researchers.

Policy experts wanted to know if the lure of federal dollars was biasing climate science research.What they found is the group responsible for a significant portion of government climate science funding seems more concerned with promoting the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) paradigm, than studying natural variability in weather patterns.

“In short there appears to be virtually no discussion of the natural variability attribution idea. In contrast there appears to be extensive coverage of AGW issues,” David Wojick, a freelance reporter and policy analyst, wrote in a blog post, referring to research he did with climate scientist Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This bias in favor of AGW has significant implications for US climate change policy,” Wojick wrote for the blog Climate Etc., which is run by climate scientist Judith Curry.

They conducted a “semantic” analysis of three years of budget requests for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which usually gets around $2.5 billion. They found USGCRP overwhelmingly used language supporting the AGW paradigm.

“The ratio of occurrences is roughly 80 to one,” Wojick wrote. “This extreme lack of balance between considerations of the two competing paradigms certainly suggests that paradigm protection is occurring.”

Politicians have become more concerned with global warming in recent years, and have been willing to shell out more money for potential solutions to the problem. The Obama administration, for example, reported spending $22.2 billion on global warming efforts in 2013, including $2.5 billion to the USGCRP.

That’s a lot of money, and illustrates why Wojick and Michaels are so concerned about federal money’s influence on science.

“Present policy is based on the AGW paradigm, but if a significant fraction of global warming is natural then this policy may be wrong,” Wojick wrote. “Federal climate research should be trying to solve the attribution problem, not protecting the AGW paradigm.”

Wojick and Michaels have already weighed in on the bias in climate science towards using models, which they say “is a bad thing.”

“Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling,” they wrote in May. “Modeling can be a useful tool, a way of playing with hypotheses to explore their implications or test them against observations. That is how modeling is used in most sciences.”

“But in climate change science modeling appears to have become an end in itself. In fact it seems to have become virtually the sole point of the research,” they wrote. “The modelers’ oft stated goal is to do climate forecasting, along the lines of weather forecasting, at local and regional scales.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/feds-fund-scientists-who-protect-the-global-warming-paradigm-says-report/#ixzz4ILFz2fyy

Blue Lakes in Antarctica and Lies from the Independent

August 25, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-langhovde-glacier-east-antarctica-dronning-maud-land-scientists-a7204691.html

 

Put the Independent and Chris Mooney together, and what do you get? Alarmist drivel!

 

Read more…

Great Barrier Reef in near pristine condition: dive boat operators

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

  

image

https://cairnsnews.org/2016/08/23/great-barrier-reef-in-near-pristine-condition-dive-boat-operators/

 

From Cairns News:

 

The healthy Great Barrier Reef deniers have been caught out lying about coral bleaching and the near-pristine condition of the world’s best coral icon.

Read more…

UK needs to invest £215bn in energy by 2030: Barclays

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood   

 

 

h/t Tallbloke

 

  

image

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-215bn-in-energy-by-2030-barclays/1271602#.V72Wya02GSo

 

From Utility Week:

 

The UK will need to invest an “eye-watering” £215 billion in its energy system by 2030 in order to replace aging assets and decarbonise, analysis by Barclays Research has found.

 

As the country undergoes an “energy revolution” nearly half – £95 billion – will need to be spent on disruptive technologies such as renewables, battery storage and distributed generation.

“With electricity security of supply already on a knife edge, the UK faces the obsolescence of approximately 40 per cent of its current aged [combined cycle gas turbine] fleet by around 2020 and approximately 70 per cent of all reliable generation capacity by 2030,” the report said.

In addition to losing 15GW of unabated coal capacity by 2025 due to pledged phase out, the report said by 2030 the UK is also expected to lose: 7.7GW of the current 8.9GW of operational nuclear capacity; 22GW of gas generation capacity, 13GW of it by 2020; and 2.3GW of biomass conversion capacity due to the ending of government subsidies in 2027.

“Shoring up the UK’s current tenuous electricity security of supply in the face of this mass obsolescence of baseload generation capacity, combined with government policy to achieve a 57 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, will require an eye-watering level of investment over coming years,” it said.

The report’s estimates are based on an average of National Grid’s four ‘Future Energy Scenarios’ published in July. This average scenario sees a 5 per cent (16TWh) increase in annual energy demand, as a 42TWh increase in demand from electric vehicles and the electrification of heating more than offsets a 25TWh reduction due to energy efficiency measures. To meet this demand, it envisions a 45GW increase in overall capacity, most of it coming from intermittent renewables.

Securing sufficient investment will require “transparent, stable and supportive policies”, especially as the wholesale pricing mechanism is “effectively permanently broken as a signal to develop new generation capacity, undermined by the introduction of significant levels of subsidised low/zero dispatch cost renewables”.

“The wholesale price and load factor uncertainty resulting from further renewables capacity growth mean the vast majority of the UK’s required new generation capacity investment will not materialise without a subsidy or other high confidence revenue stream,” the report added. 

It praised both the contracts for difference and capacity market mechanisms for doing just that, but said other policies such as the levy control framework have “proven themselves unable to cope with changing market conditions and require both adjustment and increased transparency”. The current policy portfolio will be “insufficient” to meet the target of reducing emissions by 57 per cent on 1990 levels during the fifth carbon budget (2028-2032).

Investing £215 billion in the energy system was predicted to generate earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of £25.2 billion each year by 2030. The report said National Grid and SSE are likely be the biggest winners from this profit growth: National Grid because of its investments in interconnectors and the transmission network; and SSE because of its investments in wind capacity and both transmission and distribution grids. 

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-215bn-in-energy-by-2030-barclays/1271602#.V72Wya02GSo

 

  • There is, of course, always a need to replace obsolete capacity, but the reference to £95 billion needing to be spent on disruptive technologies is particularly pertinent.
  • “Policies such as the levy control framework have “proven themselves unable to cope with changing market conditions and require both adjustment and increased transparency”. :-  The levy control framework was designed to cap the amount of subsidies that consumers would need to pay out. What this report seems to be calling for is an increase in subsidy.
  • “The wholesale price and load factor uncertainty resulting from further renewables capacity growth mean the vast majority of the UK’s required new generation capacity investment will not materialise without a subsidy or other high confidence revenue stream,”: –  Some of us have been saying this for years.
  • National Grid and SSE are likely be the biggest winners from this profit growth” :- Hardly surprising that the National Grid have been so supportive of the government’s climate policies. One might have preferred them to concentrate on ensuring a cheap and reliable supply of power!

Theresa May can reduce carbon emissions or protect British jobs – not both

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/theresa-may-can-reduce-carbon-emissions-or-protect-british-jobs/

 

David Green, who is director of think tank Civitas, writes:

 

The "proper industrial strategy" being advocated by Theresa May faces some immediate tests. The first is climate change: carbon reduction destroys jobs and a "proper industrial strategy" will have to choose jobs over carbon reduction. The second is the exchange rate, which has been ignored for decades, even though an over-valued currency can wipe out all the efforts of our companies to reduce prices by improving their productivity.

Read more…

Extreme Weather Is Not Getting Worse – Dr Roger Pielke Jr

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/08/23/floods-are-not-increasing-dr-roger-pielke-jr-slams-global-warming-link-to-floods-extreme-weather-how-does-media-get-away-with-this/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

 

From Climate Depot:

 

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), slammed the linkage of global warming to the recent Louisiana floods and other types of extreme weather. (See: Bill Nye: Climate change is reason for Louisiana floods)

Pielke authored the 2014 book “The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change.” 

 

“Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either,” Pielke Jr. declared on August 23. Pielke rebuked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for linking floods to climate change.  Krugman blamed “climate change” for ‘a proliferation of disasters like the one in Louisiana.’

“How does Krugman get away with this?” Pielke asked while showcasing this scientific graph.

 

 

“Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

In a message aimed at climate activists and many in the media, Pielke cautioned: “Remember, disasters can happen any time and they suck. But it is also good to understand long-term trends based on data, not hype.”

“In my career I’ve seen the arguments go from: 1- ‘Drought increasing globally’ — To — 2- ‘OK, not globally, but look at THIS one drought.’ I’ll stick with the UN IPCC and the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) consensus rather than selected studies. Both of those agree there is no global or U.S. trend though literature is diverse,” Pielke wrote.

Extreme weather is NOT getting worse

Pielke also pointed to the hard scientific data that shows other types of extreme weather are not getting worse and may in fact be improving.

“Is U.S. drought getting worse? No,” Pielke wrote and revealed this EPA graph:

 

 

Professor Pielke Jr. also noted: “US hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900” and provided this graph.

 

 

“Recent years have seen record low tornadoes,” Pielke Jr. added with this data from NOAA.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/08/23/floods-are-not-increasing-dr-roger-pielke-jr-slams-global-warming-link-to-floods-extreme-weather-how-does-media-get-away-with-this/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29