Skip to content

Take Two!

July 31, 2016

By Paul Homewood  





  1. July 31, 2016 10:05 am

    This may be bad news for the climate movement but it is good news for power-starved Bangladesh. The poor countries of the world are poor partly because they are energy poor. They need to drastically increase their energy consumption and their carbon dioxide emissions to get out of poverty.
    Once they get out of poverty, but not before then, they can play the rich man’s game with emissions and climate.
    for details

  2. David Richardson permalink
    July 31, 2016 10:42 am

    It would be laughable – if it wasn’t so bloody serious.

    Can we hold out any hope that sense is starting to prevail? – don’t answer that.

    • Mark Hodgson permalink
      July 31, 2016 2:15 pm

      I’m wondering if the first straws in the wind are appearing, now that we seem to have a Prime Minister who may be more sensible than her predecessors where energy policy is concerned. The BBC website has a story by Matt McGrath headlined “Debate needed on 1.5C temperature target” –

      After the usual rubbish, it finishes with this:

      But if the world is to take the 1.5 target seriously, then a serious discussion needs to be held about the implications of that goal.
      “I think there needs to be a very thoughtful debate about what’s to be gained at these different temperature levels, if approaching the lower levels meant severely damaging the economy,” said Dr Huntingford.
      “Every climate scientist realises that when you write that we have to get emissions down to hit this target that could potentially push the world into a global recession – so we need to be really clear about what’s to be gained by aiming for 1.5 that might be extremely difficult for society rather than 2 degrees.”

      Not much, but the first recognition I’ve seen on the BBC that CO2 emssions reductions can only be achieved by damaging the economy.

      • Billy Liar permalink
        July 31, 2016 6:21 pm

        The 1.5 target has only appeared because, even in the minds of the catastrophists, 2.0C above whatever the arbitrary datum was looks ever less likely to happen before hell freezes over.

      • Harry Passfiled permalink
        July 31, 2016 6:43 pm

        Of course, if the climate ‘scientists’ thought that their target of 1.5 Deg would cause a recession, they should also have twigged who would be the first to lose their funding. Shame.
        BTW: I notice that Brexit is now taking over from ‘global warming’ as an excuse for doing/not doing something, or the reason for something happening/not happening.

  3. 1saveenergy permalink
    July 31, 2016 11:08 am

    In that first link they are using new math’s (where less = more) to promote solar

    ”According to EnAppSys, solar produced 0.89TWh of electricity during May, which was over 50 per cent more than the 1.38TWh derived from coal.”

    Solar is 35% LESS than coal ….NOT 50% more !!!

    • Leslie Johnson permalink
      July 31, 2016 11:33 am

      I suspect they meant it was more than 50% OF coal. Sloppy writing on their part.

      • AlecM permalink
        July 31, 2016 2:30 pm

        But at night, it’s infinity% less than coal.

  4. AlecM permalink
    July 31, 2016 4:36 pm

    The solution to the problem is to re-equp a number of the typically 400 MW Parsons three turbine, coal-fired power stations with a RR submarine PWR to provide the steam. The turbines have incredibly long lives because you regularly replace the blade and bearings, also the alternator and the rest of the electrical system remains unchanged, maybe with updated control systems.

    Declaration: I have worked in the Lynemouth power station now being forced to burn American bloody trees to satisfy the environmental disaster lust of the eco-fascists, whilst not doing anything to combat non-existwnt CO2-AGW!

    • griff permalink
      August 2, 2016 2:36 pm


      How are you? keeping well?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: