Skip to content

Now Boris maps his way OUT of Net Zero agenda: PM sets up oil and gas taskforce to plot a way out of the energy crisis

March 13, 2022

By Paul Homewood

Interesting news:

 

 

 image

Boris Johnson will set up an energy task force to bolster the UK’s oil, gas and nuclear supplies as he plots a way out of the energy crisis.

Two senior industry experts at its head will report directly to the Prime Minister and advise on a ‘transition period’ focusing on fossil fuels – as the Government signals its clearest move yet away from the Net Zero target.

Sources said the task force has the twin aim of boosting the UK’s energy self-sufficiency in the wake of the war in Ukraine and keeping household energy bills down.

Government insiders have privately admitted the Government’s focus on decarbonising the economy by 2050 has to be dropped in the short term.

It comes as the Prime Minister stressed the need for Europe to rid itself of its dependency on Russian oil and gas, and Ministers grapple with spiralling heating costs.

‘We don’t want to be at the mercy of brutal dictators like Putin,’ said a source familiar with the plan.

One insider said: ‘Net Zero is dead.’ Another said a clear directive against the ‘green agenda’ and away from Net Zero has been set by political strategist Sir Lynton Crosby, who has been advising the Prime Minister.

Last night, a senior Downing Street source insisted the Net Zero 2050 target has not been scrapped and was still the ultimate goal. But they admitted that in the short term the focus will shift back to fossil fuels to ease the pain for British households.

This will include oil and gas from the North Sea and Canada, while fracking is also now on the table.

The source insisted, though, that ‘in the long term the goal is still the same’ on renewable energy and Net Zero.

The new task force is also expected to produce actionable plans for boosting the UK’s use of solar and wind power and nuclear energy – developing ‘more reliable home-grown British energy’.

However, the source added the pursuit of Net Zero would be out of ‘practical necessity, not lofty green commitments’.

The task force will be ‘very action-focused’, sources said, with its two experts empowered to ‘cut through’ Civil Service red tape and bring together the Treasury, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department and planning departments. Two candidates – one academic and another involved in energy finance – are in discussions for the positions.

The roles have been modelled in part on Kate Bingham, who was brought in to chair the UK vaccine task force in 2020.

Downing Street Chief of Staff Steve Barclay will chair a Cabinet sub-committee focusing on revamping energy policy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10606801/PM-sets-oil-gas-taskforce-plot-way-energy-crisis.html

 

Anything which moves decision making away from the green blob in the civil service is very welcome.

92 Comments
  1. JimW permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:28 pm

    Its still central planning. Why not just rip out all the subsidies out of the system and let the market signal true economic prices? It will then solve itself. Of course there will be no more unreliables or nukes for that matter.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      March 13, 2022 5:54 pm

      That would avoid the suspense of waiting to see if the “two senior industry experts” are competent, honest and persuasive.

      (The nukes aren’t really a short term solution, and that is what we need.)

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 13, 2022 6:42 pm

        This is how our western governments have been sucked into the ‘Net Zero’ rabbit hole. All a game of slight of hand . . . A magician’s trick . . Rit Large !!

        Emissions credits accounted for $518 million in revenue in a quarter that saw a pre-tax income of $533 million and a net income of $438 million on a GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals) basis (over $2 billion for the year). The credits account for almost the entirety of Tesla’s profit for this quarter—in fact, sales of emissions credits have been a major source of revenue for Tesla for quite some time, contributing to hundreds of millions in income for the past few quarters. The automaker accumulates regulatory credits because it produces only EVs and sells them for a profit to Polluters on the Global Carbon Trading platform that are short of these credits. OH, when you take a close look, AND you look at where electricity comes from and you look at line losses . . . EV’s burn 15% more CO2 than Gas Cars . . . How Ironic . . . ??

        ‘Environmental Programs’ and ‘Public Policy Initiatives’ make Tesla Profitable . . . Not energy savings and NOT CO2 savings . . .

        Why do western Governments Subsidize, with our Tax Dollars
        . . . such an Obvious Scientific Lie ??

        This could be the Biggest Environmental Scandal in History ?

        From . . .
        https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry

        A $1 TRILLION annual game . . . Almost outright fraud . . . if not for government legislation enacting all this nonsense since the Paris accord . . .

        https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction

  2. Nick permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:28 pm

    So much for the UK’s legal obligation to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Any slippage now will never be made up. What is the point of passing laws if you just give them up when the going gets tough. A bit like the way the Western world treats international law.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      March 13, 2022 4:28 pm

      Time to repeal the ruinous 2008 CCA.
      Maybe an adult has showed them that net zero is 1) Unachievable without destroying the economy & costing many lives and 2) Even if we do achieve the impossible, it’ll have the square root of fuck all effect on global temperatures.

      • D Hynes permalink
        March 14, 2022 6:39 pm

        Well said.

    • March 13, 2022 5:24 pm

      Laws are amended constantly, why should this one be any different, especially when it was passed with net zero consideration of cost, feasibility and effectiveness.

      • Vernon E permalink
        March 14, 2022 2:19 pm

        To ammend a law still requires a vote in parliament and even with the 80 seat majority I’m not sure that this wpould get through.

    • March 13, 2022 5:24 pm

      Nick – What is the point of importing stuff we can produce ourselves?

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        March 13, 2022 6:08 pm

        Exactly.

        Making Net Zero a legal requirement by a specific date was always a foolish move, made by numerically challenged zealots.

        Even if it had been an international treaty, rather than a national suicide note, I always hoped that when the situation got serious then abrogation rather than suicide would be the choice.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:02 pm

      It’s an opportunity to investigate the effect that the Sun has on our weather and climate. It’s been ignored for so long.

      There’s a lot happening in the field of solar activity, earthquakes, astrophysics and weather.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 13, 2022 6:23 pm

        On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the United States Government, declared, in Scientific American and also in Nature Geoscience on July 17th, 2011, that more than 1/2 of all the heat that keeps planet Earth from freezing in the cosmos comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. The other half of the heat that keeps life possible on Earth, comes from the Sun. The earth’s core is said to be 6,230o centigrade . . . Equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Scientists described the core of the Earth as a Fission reactor producing more than one half of all the heat needed to survive in the Universe as we careen through space at 107,000 kilometers per hour circling around the Sun.

        https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclearfission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/

        Not one research paper regarding ‘Climate Change’ ever written to this day includes that 50% contribution to Global Warming coming from the Earth’s core. 100 % of all papers written to date describe the effects of the Sun and Solar Radiation as being the only source of energy. How will that effect our long-term calculations considering this one dramatic alteration to statistical analysis? And how will this one enormous fact change our views of climate change?

        100% of current data describing ‘Man-Made climate change’ is flawed by at least 50 % !

        https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

      • Curious George permalink
        March 13, 2022 9:30 pm

        Jim, your SciAm blog link is dead. The geothermal heat is estimated to be 0.1W/m2 in average. The solar heat is about 340W/m2 in average over the planet surface. The effect of 340.0 versus 340.1 is not measurable by today’s technology.

      • mothcatcher permalink
        March 13, 2022 10:09 pm

        Internal nuclear may well be responsible for more than half the earth’s INTRINSIC heat, but that has an utterly trivial effect at the surface compared to the large solar energy fluxes that we normally discuss. I think you have jumped to a conclusion or two, Jim…..,,…

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 14, 2022 8:06 am

        Here are my simplistic conclusions and questions . . . theories . . . ?

        https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

        Very little, almost NO research is available on this subject. However, I live near this site and I have witnessed these Climate Changes of ALL these years first hand . . . repeated drought in a rain forest. Just WAY too many correlations to be ignored . . .

        My Thoughts . . .

      • Curious George permalink
        March 13, 2022 11:05 pm

        Jim, thanks. They are referring to a radioactive decay, calling it incorrectly a “nuclear fission”. They say it produces a half of the 100mW/2 geothermal heat. No reactors down there.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 14, 2022 3:46 am

        Quite right Mr. George . . . But that heat escapes from 3 million volcanoes beneath the oceans everyday, somewhere on Earth, in HIGHLY irregular ways. Only one of those Volcanoes has ever been regularly studied . . . The Axial Seamount. In the year 2021, we do not even have a system by which to rate the magnitude or the volumetric outflow. We have $10 billion to spend on interstellar telescopes yet we know NOTHING about what is going on beneath the Oceans right here on Earth. 90% of the oceans have not been studied below 200 meters . . . They average 15 km. Most people don’t even know what a gyer is or how they work to keep ocean levels stable between periods of warming and cooling. Worst, however, we have no idea how the oceans interact with the liquid make-up of the Earth’s mantle below those gyers . . . or what effect that may have on Plate Tectonics . . .

        https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

        My thoughts . . .

    • catweazle666 permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:40 pm

      “What is the point of passing laws if you just give them up when the going gets tough”

      What is the point of keeping laws that have been inspired by utterly scientifically illiterate recreationally outraged virtue signallers based on totally false “science” and are patently obviously utterly ill-conceived and are are causing irreparable harm to both public health, wealth and the economy?

      • dave permalink
        March 14, 2022 1:35 pm

        jimlemaistre,

        You have referred to this matter before several times, but you are simply misunderstanding what the Scientific American article SAYS.
        Since it involves typical writing on popular science from ‘content providers,’ the statements need a little unwrapping.

        “The new measurements suggest radioactive decay provides more than half of Earth’s total heat, estimated at roughly 44 terawatts based on temperatures found at the bottom of deep boreholes into the planet’s crust.”

        They also say, elsewhere in the article, “roughly 20 terawatts of [radioactively produced] heat” ; and this makes “more than half” a blunder, as 20 is less than half of 44, not more.

        In any case, they do NOT mean that the internal thermal energy of the oceans and atmosphere is sustained by a flow of 44 terawatts of which half comes from fission. The ’44 terawatts’ is what Curious George mentions above as about 0.1 watts/sq.meter, sort of leaking outwards. The flow of energy from the Sun (not a flow of of ‘heat’ since it comes as electro-magnetic energy – see below for why all this DELIBERATE nonsense is foisted on us.) is 173,000 terawatts.

        44 versus 173,000. Can we get a sense of perspective?

        One might ask why discussion so quickly turns into confusion, on the part of both scientists and non-scientists, whenever ‘Thermodynamics’ – which is a simple subject at heart – is involved

        Largely, perhaps, to mess with the minds of non-scientists, modern scientists keep changing the meaning of perfectly good old words.They refresh their private jargon, and this certainly helps to stop ‘laymen’ from getting to grips with their BS. (They also seem to mess up their own minds by doing i;; but as, in any case, they are usually completely muddled before they even leave High School, ‘plus ca change.’)

        I will try to explain a little of the confusion as I see it, although it is like trying to make sense of your teenager’s grunts and mumbles. By ‘heat’ THEY MEAN energy passing AS ‘thermal energy.’ between a system and its surroundings. (Yes, I know; but they only do it to annoy.) On this absurd usage, if no thermal energy is moving around by, say conduction, there is NO HEAT ANYWHERE.

        In Thermodynamics Texts this version of the word ‘Heat’ is called Q. Internal Energy is called U, and Enthalpy is called H. If you want rates, i.e. power, you put a dot above the letters to indicate differentiation with time. ‘Terawatts’ is a unit of power.

        So… that 44 terawatts is exactly and only the estimated trickle of thermal energy passing from the interior of the solid body of the earth to the surface of the Earth and then eventually to outer space. The trickle is presented to the oceans and atmosphere by a mixture of conduction and convection of the high temperature rock which is always – unknowable to us by our ordinary senses – beneath our feet. Note how the article talks specifically of having to measure temperatures in deep boreholes. The slow – very slow – cooling of the planet as a whole from the inside outwards, contributes a trivial addition to that intense flood of energy from the Sun which affects us in ‘our’ sliver of surfacial volume for a short while and is then lost to space.

        If the inside of the solid Earth from, say, the bottom of our deep mines down to the middle, were suddenly drained of much its thermal energy, we would not get ‘the message’ in any timescale which is human.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 14, 2022 3:17 pm

        Obviously Dave, you have an excellent grasp of the thermodynamics of the earth and the concept of solar radiation. I have a more basic knowledge of these things.

        When heating your house, the heated air coming from your furnace or from your fireplace heats up the objects in the room which in turn radiate heat back into the room even when the furnace is off. The object is ‘to heat the room’, the walls, the floors and all the furnishings.

        The Earth IS the room . . . it is NOT solid . . . it is a Liquid . . . out under the tectonic plates and under the continents we lave liquid rock at about 1,000 degrees C. Down towards the outer core that liquid rock is about 1,800 degrees C. The Earth’s core is said to be 6,300 degrees C, equal to the surface of the sun. New research is evolving that describes the ‘Convection currents’ between the Earth’s Crust and the Earth’s outer Core who’s “Viscosity is called a slowly moving or creeping fluid that does not have turbulence”. This quote is from David Bercovici in his Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 7 – Mantle Dynamics. That fluid nature however, is dynamically affected by actions above the earth’s crust. The depth to which Mountain Ranges Penetrate the Mantle introduces a ‘Turbulence Factor’ against the slow Centrifugal Rotation of the liquid Body of The Earth.

        The continents and their mountain ranges drop deep within the mantle. Best described like ‘Ice Bergs’ dipping deep within the mantle. Then, we have the mid ocean ridges circling the Earth like the seam on a baseball, that have been described as 26,000 mile long volcano, always erupting somewhere along it’s length. From the previous analogy, the objects in the room in this case are the Earth’s crust. Everything below IS already hot and is radiating HEAT out to the crust and into the Oceans and into the atmosphere every day.

        When the objects in the room, the planet, are warm the room stays warm, heating the air in the room from within. Unlike with the Sun . . . it’s effect is only on the superficial surfaces of the Earth out to the stratosphere. Yes a Huge volume of energy, but nothing by comparison to the already absorbed energy of the inside of the Earth. The Earth is 2,760 km across, the crust on each side averages 15 km in thickness, 30 km combined. So that leaves about 2,630 kilometers of molten rock . . . Lava . . . above the temperature of liquid steel.

        By calculation, one eruption that lasted 4 months, at the Axial Seamount in 2011 released over 15 cu km of lava. The energy contained in that lava is enough to produce ALL the Steel required on Planet Earth for 75 years . . . Now THAT, is a sh!t load of HEAT !

        Let’s see if solar radiation can do that ?

        My thoughts . . .

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      March 13, 2022 7:21 pm

      Net zero is a very stupid idea.

    • March 14, 2022 6:17 am

      Welcome Nick, greendream forums are not as open as this one.
      Usually greens run from fair debate.
      I never voted for 2050 why should it be imposed on me ?

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        March 14, 2022 12:13 pm

        There are a lot of things I never voted for but have been imposed on me, unfortunately. It’s what happens when you live in a democracy where the party vored for by the largest minority have a total majority.

        It appears to be what the people like as they rejected a form of proportional representation in a referendum

      • March 14, 2022 1:52 pm

        Ben I don’t even think most Tory voters voted for Net Zero
        rather it has been imposed by the elites.

        If I/we find this undemocratic we have a right to say.

        I was out of the country during the years of the PR vote
        I don’t think the public rejected PR
        rather they were given a false choice.

    • March 14, 2022 6:22 am

      “never be made up” wrong
      UK government policy says CCS can be made to work
      If that is true, then it wouldn’t matter how much gas a power station used.
      It would be near Carbon Neutral.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      March 14, 2022 7:50 am

      Nick . . . The legislation, internationally, to attain Net Zero by any future year is built upon an EXTREMLY complex ‘Magic Trick’. A game of ‘Slight of Hand’ as close to fraud as I can imagine . . . First, ALL the credits coming from solar panels, wind turbines or EV’s, all fail the test of how much ‘Embodied Energy’ is ignored when declaring these systems ‘Emissions Free’. EV’s consume 31% more energy per mile driven than Gas Cars . . .

      https://www.academia.edu/73548362/Electric_Cars_Burn_31_More_Energy_than_Gas_Cars_Revised_

      The whole ‘Emissions Free’ and ‘Green Energy’ narrative is bogus and the ‘carbon trading’ initiatives are like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic trying to right the ship. Nice effort, but a useless. Brought to you by the well intentioned yet Naïf goal of ‘Cleaning up the Planet’

      https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction

      There Ain’t No such thing as a Free Lunch . . .

      • March 14, 2022 1:49 pm

        Yes, Terms Green PR created are PR words, not real world truths
        ‘Emissions Free’ “net Zero” “Green energy” “Clean and Green”
        In a logical world the BBC would have pushed back and not adopted them.

        “REnewables” If I chop down a 300 year old oak and burn it, that’s a renewable fuel”
        Yeh well there is still ahuge gap where the tree was for hundreds of years.

        If coal/oil/gas really come from dead vegetation then they too are renewables
        ..just on ten thousand year long time scales.

  3. GeoffB permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:42 pm

    Depends who the experts are, Sir David King and Lord Debden (John Gummer) !!!!!!

    • March 13, 2022 5:31 pm

      Hopefully not Emma Pinchbeck, CEO of Energy UK, supposedly a cross-company trade body, she was and still is a cheerleader for ruinables, she is constantly on the BBC:

      “Emma Pinchbeck has been confirmed as the new chief executive of Energy UK.
      Pinchbeck joins Energy UK from Renewable UK where she was deputy chief executive and brings with her valuable expertise and knowledge of the energy sector.”

    • J Flood permalink
      March 15, 2022 8:23 am

      Deben, not Debden. A pillock by any other name is still a pillock.

      Why is one of the Climate Change Committee a senior member of the Nudge Unit?

      JF

  4. sixlittlerabbits permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:42 pm

    Boris having a rare moment of sanity! May he have many more.

    • Phil O'Sophical permalink
      March 14, 2022 11:09 am

      Let us not hastily confuse words with actions, especially where Boris is concerned. Now if he had announced he was also divorcing Carrie, I might take his words more seriously.

  5. Colin R Brooks AKA Dung permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:42 pm

    Mixed messages, no change in long term plans, need more information.

  6. ThinkingScientist permalink
    March 13, 2022 3:45 pm

    Government wants to help the oil and gas industry?

    JUST GET OUT OF EFFIN’ THE WAY AND LET US DO OUR JOBS!

    And the rest of the population and the MSM: stop making out we are evil. If we were gone you will miss us. As you shiver in the dark.

    Rant over.

    I did point out to our MP last week that the current crisis finally gives the Conservative government a face-saving way out of the Net Zero madness. Simply prioritise energy security along with lowering costs and quietly shelve the renewable madness. Best way to deal with renewables – make them pay their own way, including dispatchability.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:13 pm

      +10 , TS.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 13, 2022 6:17 pm

        Aman to that !!!

    • Matt Dalby permalink
      March 13, 2022 7:13 pm

      “Just get out Effin’ way” This would obviously be a great start, however it has to be followed by a clear signal from all the main parties that they’ll stay out of the way, e.g. by scrapping the climate change act and carbon taxes. The private sector is unlikely to invest huge amounts in new fossil fuel projects if they think it’s likely that government policy will swing back towards net zero in a few years, and they’ll be left with stranded assets.

    • J Flood permalink
      March 15, 2022 8:28 am

      Renewables should be forced to guarantee a capacity factor of 90%+ before being allowed to connect to the Grid. They would then have to provide the backup needed when the sun/wind fails instead of sponging off the consumer.

      JF

  7. March 13, 2022 3:51 pm

    The trouble is if Boris’s wifey has her way and greenies are appointed there will be no change just rearrangement of deck chairs on the Climate Titanic

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:16 pm

      Oh to be a fly on wall at #11 When BJ told HRH Nut Nut what he was planning. Bet his conjugals were in short supply.

  8. jimlemaistre permalink
    March 13, 2022 4:29 pm

    Well said Mr. Scott . . . That shuffling will NEVER right the ship . . . But it makes everyone feel like they are doing something useful . . . that might help . . .

    The whole ‘Decarbonizing’ discussion is a Red Herring . . .

    There is NO Such Thing as Clean Energy !

    The ‘Net Zero’ program is the closest thing to fraud I could ever imagine . . .

    When you go to Wind or Solar or EV’s . . . There are ‘Embedded Costs’ that the ‘Green Energy’ advocates choose to ignore . . . Time to learn the truth about ‘Green Technology’ . . . The Facts . . . NOT the Propaganda so often paraded as the ‘New Paradigm’ . . . It is just an illusion . . . The ‘Clean Green Energy’ narrative is so filled with false assumptions it would be laughable if not for its wide spread acceptance in society at large. The following is but one explanation of how that green narrative has gone off the rails, so to speak.

    Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425 degrees C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450 degrees C for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste?

    What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels EXCEEDS their energy output in their productive lifetime . . . From . . .

    https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction

    https://www.academia.edu/71021345/All_Electricity_Even_Renewables_Poisons_Planet_Earth

    My thoughts . . .

  9. March 13, 2022 4:39 pm

    It is very noticeable that neither of the experts is an engineer or scientist with experience and knowledge of how our energy system actually works. I wonder why not?

    • Jeremy permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:47 pm

      Too near reality.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 14, 2022 10:29 am

        Too likely to be competent for a government run by a complete incompetent.

  10. Mack permalink
    March 13, 2022 5:17 pm

    I’ll believe that there’s a change in government policy when Cuadrilla are officially told ‘NOT’ to concrete cap their shale wells. Has that happened yet? I believe that the company needed to know by this weekend as the process, ordered by the regulator, was due to start tomorrow in order to be completed by the June deadline the company were given.

    • Phil O'Sophical permalink
      March 14, 2022 11:16 am

      I think it was just put on hold. The irony of filling the wells with concrete that produces huge quantities of CO2 in its manufacture is lost on the pretend-adults running the country.

  11. March 13, 2022 5:25 pm

    Why do we need “industrial experts” to stop wind and solar, re-open as many coal mines as possible, re-start North sea oil and gas drilling, start large-scale fracking, re-think nuclear restrictions, stop subsidising EV’s and stop pretending that batteries can power any grid.

    • dave permalink
      March 16, 2022 11:07 am

      “Why do we need “industrial experts” to…?”

      So ‘they’ can pretend that the car-crash, pile-up, disasters that are ruining Western Civilization are – somehow – technical failures of a complicated system; instead of simple sabotage by mad, bad, stupid-beyond-belief, mainly young, men and women, who take sadistic pleasure in our discomfiture.

      Just think, ‘born-evil children’ and ‘their bewildered parents,’ to understand the world quite well.

  12. Jordan permalink
    March 13, 2022 5:40 pm

    >an energy task force to bolster the UK’s oil, gas and nuclear supplies
    >in the short term the focus will shift back to fossil fuels to ease the pain
    The remit has to include coal, both short-term measures of keeping existing coal fired stations in operation, and a long-term role for coal fired generation to diversify primary energy supply.
    First step has to be the repeal of the intrusive intervention to end coal use by 2025. Another urgent step must be to provide the necessary business conditions to keep Ratcliffe and West Burton coal stations open (not to forget Kilroot and the couple of remaining Drax coal fired units).

    • J Flood permalink
      March 15, 2022 8:34 am

      Uk coal, deep-mined is too expensive and a distraction and not needed. Gas, our own gas, plus SMRs will do the job.

      TCW Defending Freedom blog has The Sensible Speech on Climate the PM will never make. I wish people* would listen to common sense.

      JF
      *Namely the STEM-illiterates in HMG.

  13. Thomas Carr permalink
    March 13, 2022 5:59 pm

    DM Online don’t tell us what the PM will do . We have a surfeit of jam tomorrow from the present administration. We need to know that the task force is operating and what competences the industry experts bring to the party.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      March 13, 2022 6:20 pm

      I don’t think the jam promised by Boris is a close, relatively speaking, as tomorrow.

  14. Harry Passfield permalink
    March 13, 2022 6:24 pm

    Just been watching Dung Heap and others discussing the Severn flooding over the years on BBC. One farmer, who will never be allowed back on the BBC, said that the floods were more to do with extensive home building up-river, while some silly woman (men can be just as daft) said that the answer was net-zero. Pity the reporter didn’t ask how long that would take.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      March 13, 2022 7:45 pm

      Hilarious contradictions throughout.
      One moment they have someone say the area has had periods of yearly floods since at least the 1700s and flagstone floors and minimal interior decoration were the way they coped. Then they had the repeatedly flooded owner of the 500 year old pub saying he was resorting to a tiled floor to reduce damage and speed the clean ups.
      Dung Heap then cites the fact that the pub was built in the first place as proof the floods were a new thing/getting worse.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        March 14, 2022 12:17 pm

        Was that on BBC Countryphobe?

      • Jordan permalink
        March 14, 2022 5:49 pm

        Ben – it’s something like “BBC Country Pile”

  15. David permalink
    March 13, 2022 6:52 pm

    jimlemaistre. I love your your contributions but can you please check your comma positions in your numbers?

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      March 13, 2022 7:25 pm

      OOP’s . . . That is what happens when I copy and Paste . . . Degrees become small zero’s . . . Thanks !

  16. Devoncamel permalink
    March 13, 2022 7:12 pm

    The clincher for Bojo is the next election. The electorate will give their verdict and since zero commentators predicted the outcome of the last one he must ditch net zero or be sent packing.

  17. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 13, 2022 7:59 pm

    Some of us have been saying for years that domestic energy bills would have to go up 4 to 6 times to make renewables competitive, and that people would end up spending a substantial proportion of their income on it.
    It is in effect just a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest, as was the Vax campaign albeit more indirectly through taxpayer cash.
    As if by magic we have the Ukraine crisis to blame, and still the real reason, the energy policy which is criminally dishonest/incompetent behaviour in public office, escapes true scrutiny and blame.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      March 13, 2022 8:10 pm

      Other than independent forums . . . The Big Green Propaganda Machine . . . Rules the airwaves and the printed press . . . The Media ‘Owns’ this space and they REFUSE to permit thoughtful discourse to enter ! If ‘Environmentalists’ and ‘Rationalists’ were independent ‘Political parties’ both would get some air time . . . Just to be fair ! But here, that is NOT the case. We have Paul Homewood, whatsupwiththat and new real science . . . YET . . . No Media Voice ! . . . What will it take ?? How deluded are they? Very Ironic . . . peer Review !

      https://www.academia.edu/73566289/The_Irony_of_The_Written_Word

  18. M E permalink
    March 13, 2022 8:51 pm

    I look to Yes Prime Minister books when suddenly intervention by the government is postponed. ( He never intended it in the first place . Just keeping the opposition inside and outside the cabinet in check)
    None of you would make good politicians, I M H O. humble though it is. I’ve been around a long time.

    • dave permalink
      March 17, 2022 5:57 pm

      jimlemaistre writes:

      “…a shit load of…”

      Measured in ‘shilos’?

      Probably not an official scientific unit!

      Is it the amount of ‘horse apples’ which falls into Biff’s car in ‘Back to the Future’?

      The mantle is mostly solid down to 3,000 km :

      https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/mantle/

      https://scienceystuffblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/the-mantle-is-solid/

      This is incontrovertible, because the material sustains transverse (shearing) seismic waves. A fluid (i.e. a liquid or a gas) can never do that. It is part of the definition of a fluid that it have a close-to-zero ability to resist the slightest shear.

      Being ‘hot’ and flowing plastically on a geological time scale is not enough to justify describing any assemblage of rocks as ‘liquid.’

      The precise answers to questions of physical ‘state’ can only be found with the help of the experimentally determined P-v-T diagrams for the constituent pure substances. These are simple enough in the sense that there is no math involved, but hard in the sense that they make heavy demands on the power of visualization.

      Here is one for water:

      Ouch!

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 17, 2022 6:26 pm

        The Core, a Fission Reactor – 6,300 degrees C . . . as hot as the surface of the Sun
        The Red – 1,000 degrees under Blue and Green . . . 1,800 degrees near yellow
        The Blue and Green is Floating Randomly on Liquid Hot Lava
        Man-Made Global Warming . . . Not Likely . . .
        50%+ of Earth’s Heat – From the Core . . .
        50%- of Earth’s Heat – From the Sun . . .

        https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 18, 2022 12:25 am

        Furthermore, this forum is meant for free and open discussions of intellectual and scientific findings . . . “…a shit load of…”Measured in ‘shilos’ . . . Does NOT lend itself to gentlemanly behavior. If that is the kind of discussion you prefer I recommend Quora . . . or some other venue . . . sincerely.

    • dave permalink
      March 18, 2022 10:07 am

      jimlemaistre,

      It was YOU who introduced the rude phrase – in your post of March14 3:17 p.m !

      Near the end. ..Axial Seamount eruption. ..Ring any bells? It was less than a week ago!
      Just scroll up to find yourself waxing lyrical.

      Here is exactly what you wrote:

      “By calculation, one eruption that lasted 4 months, at the Axial Seamount in 2011 released over 15 cu km of lava. The energy contained in that lava is enough to produce ALL the Steel required on Planet Earth for 75 years… Now THAT, is a shitload of HEAT!

      Let’s see if solar radiation can do that?

      My thoughts…”

      I was merely quoting YOU and implying in a jocular way that YOUR language was too ‘enthusiastic.’

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 18, 2022 2:47 pm

        Forgive me Dave, you are quite right . . . Forgive me for having stated the ‘Obvious’ in such a ‘vernacular’ manner. We do not approach knowledge or research from similar vantage points. I will refrain from responding to your commentary in future.

      • dave permalink
        March 18, 2022 4:13 pm

        No worries. Handsome of you to apologize.

  19. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 13, 2022 11:09 pm

    I could imagine the academic might be Dieter Helm, which would be a half sensible choice. No idea who the energy finance person might be: the worst choice would be Mark Carney.

  20. ian miller permalink
    March 13, 2022 11:38 pm

    Where did the lies come from in the first place ?
    Russia v Fracking, while China persuades us there is Climate Change, and that as good little boys and girls we give them our manufacturing and buy our electric cars and windmills from them ? It has all been in their interests to delude us all and bribe all our useful academics in the universities, civil service and government.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      March 14, 2022 12:21 am

      We walked right into all of this of our own accord . . . They quite simple fueled the fire, pun intended. Our education system started this 30 years ago during the Vietnam war. The sociopolitical left and liberal democratic education is what is eating our lunch today.

      https://www.academia.edu/49676862/Social_Engineering_Environmentalism_and_Globalization_A_New_World_Order

      Then, with ALL that indoctrination, with ALL that ‘Right Thinking’, with ALL that sociopolitical ‘Correctness’ . . . WE introduced Globalization . . . A ‘Hand Up’ . . . to the nations of the world with whom we now had ‘Détente’. This was a license to capitalists to ‘Pack their bags’ and move to jurisdictions who were ‘more open minded’ . . . WE screwed ourselves.

      Two things were missed. One . . . We did NOT require all imports to meet the pollution standards we imposed on our own producers. We should have made it impossible to buy, sell or trade goods that did not meet our own ‘Minimum Standards’. Two we did NOT offer to pay for scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators and nitrous oxide burners on all the facilities that were already here . . . That would have meant ‘Crawling into bed with the Enemy’, the fossil fuel industry . . . So . . . NOW we pay the piper.

      CO2 is NOT causing Climate Change . . . Never Has . . . Never will . . .

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

      The Enemy is US . . . WE did this . . . our education system has created this Monster in our midst . . .

      https://www.academia.edu/73566289/The_Irony_of_The_Written_Word

      NOW . . . How can we pull together and fix this mess ??

      Re-Educate the Masses . . . Get the Media onside or we are ALL hooped . . . !

      My Thoughts . . .

  21. March 14, 2022 6:13 am

    O/T 10am Monday R4,. 20% of women are to be SHAMED by @bbcWomansHour management for not conforming to their “shop yourself green” rules

    quote “20% of women haven’t even considered buying an electric car.
    We speak to Erin Baker, Editorial Director at AutoTrader about why women are less likely to opt for electric vehicles.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00159pw

    That item is #GreenBlob #PRasNews
    … Maybe those 20% could be made to wear GREEN stars on their elbows.

    ( Erin Baker did an EV item on R4 You and Yours a few days ago)

    • Jordan permalink
      March 14, 2022 6:49 pm

      Stew, I haven’t considered buying an electric car and I’m not even a woman. I wish to partake in the shaming please.

    • JBW permalink
      March 15, 2022 5:03 am

      And as I walk by our two village schools each day, with the mums waiting in their cars reading their smart phones all warm and comfortable because the engines are running because it’s a bit cold. Seems that some people haven’t got the message yet. /s

      • March 15, 2022 2:47 pm

        Mums that live just 3/4 mile from the school probably.

  22. March 14, 2022 8:14 am

    Finding experts who can explain where normal service mid-winter electricity will come from when the wind isn’t blowing and fossil fuels are banned will be a challenge.

  23. Malcolm Bell permalink
    March 14, 2022 8:21 am

    Paul and friends,

    I have for a long time been saying that maybe the atmosphere is changing because the Earth’s mantle is changing. That could warm the sea bed and so the sea and the rest comes from
    that. Equally direct heating of Africa could warm the southerly winds over Europe. Needless to say I have been much sneered at by the CO2 brigade.

    But read this below and consider my thoughts above. Could the mantle “blobs” be warming the Pacific and Africa along the lines I speculated about? I propose they are.

    Maybe these flows in the mantle explain much about our atmospheric cycles over the centuries?

    https://scitechdaily.com/two-massive-blobs-in-earths-mantle-baffle-scientists-with-their-surprising-properties/

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      March 14, 2022 2:29 pm

      Excellent piece of research Mr. Bell ! Thanks for that . . . .

  24. Tim Leeney permalink
    March 14, 2022 10:09 am

    Incidentally, it has been found that the combustion of coal, a naturally occurring resource, produces impressive quantities of energy, and the main combustion product is recycled naturally, greening the planet. Conversion of the inefficient wood-burning facility at Drax to burn coal instead might be feasible.

    • Jordan permalink
      March 14, 2022 6:54 pm

      Tim – it sounds like you have “unearthed” the case for a vast subsidy.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        March 14, 2022 6:58 pm

        Yes ! Another renewable resource . . . Very ‘GREEN’ !! Love it !!

  25. Cheshire Red permalink
    March 14, 2022 1:07 pm

    Two advisors will give government something to hide behind. ‘The advisors say…’ No different to the CCC. Watch with eagle eyes!

  26. Julian Flood permalink
    March 14, 2022 1:21 pm

    If Boris Johnson needs a route to a painless (comparatively) Net Zero he should read TCW’s post ‘The Sensible Speech on Climate the PM will never make’ and then prove me a false prophet by making it.

    The beauty of the plan is that should the Climate Hysteria prove unnecessary we will be in a powerful position to continue growing the economy

    JF

  27. D Hynes permalink
    March 14, 2022 6:44 pm

    This is a typically cynical and political move to court votes for 2022/24. If/when they get the vote, they will bring back the Net Zero agenda, no doubt with avengeance.

  28. EyeSee permalink
    March 16, 2022 10:31 am

    When dealing with issues involving the Prime Minister, you never know what pronouns to use. You never know if you are addressing Boris or Carrie. Still, the office realises they have happily sat in the energy hole, admittedly dug by many, the whole time and now something really does need to be done. So, oil and gas will be bought from anywhere, but fracking here will not be allowed. That would be secure, moral, sensible and create wealth. So at no point does it address the anti-capitalist agenda, for whom Carrie is an important Useful Idiot.

    The ineptitude of govt., it’s confused agendas and the strength of the ones they don’t tell you about, were brought into the light during Covid. It should stop us being so stupid and mindlessly compliant over the no-science Climate Change agenda. But the mask wearers will never get it, it seems.

    A major issue, like the whole oops! nature of the energy policies, is the fact that the planned rationing of electricity (and not just over the current problems), let alone unplanned blackouts (oh, wind dropped!), will kill. All modern houses are wood ‘n’ plasterboard, most do not have any means of heating except the gas boiler. When the electricity goes, you have no light, ability to cook food, keep food fresh or heat your home. The policymakers and Green agenda maniacs no doubt have nice open fires and wood burners and Aga’s and will see power cuts as exciting. Most people will have no plan B and that is if they could ever afford the ‘Green’ electricity anyway.

  29. Spurwing Plover permalink
    March 18, 2022 2:51 pm

    Johnson and the rest are painting themselves into a corner and they are trying to escape

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: