Skip to content

AEP Wants Charles To Campaign At COP27

October 7, 2022

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

 

 

AEP, who chickened out of my challenge of a debate, loses the plot again!

 

 

 image

King Charles should attend the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month as sovereign of Tuvalu, a cluster of Pacific atolls sinking underwater.

He should go as King of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and in spirit as King of Scotland, all countries with enthusiastic net-zero leaders. He should attend too as titular head of those Commonwealth states that pleaded most vehemently for CO2 and methane cuts at last year’s climate summit in Glasgow.

Unless there is a security risk that we have not been told about, it is mystifying that Downing Street should have urged him not to go. Why bench your star player, and why squander soft-power?

The UK still holds the COP26 presidency and is custodian of this UN process until the Egyptian hand-over. Liz Truss is implicitly playing down the significance, and playing down the achievements of Glasgow, that marvellously-refreshing moment when Big Money and Big Industry snatched the baton and showed us how they are going to solve the world’s problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/07/let-king-charles-go-campaign-climate-head-commonwealth/ 

And just what were these achievements at Glasgow?

COP26 was an unmitigated disaster for the Net Zero lobby. If AEP cares to remember, China and India, at the head of a large group of other developing countries, blocked all moves to phase out coal power, while there is no sign of countries coming back with strengthened emission targets. Worse still there are no targets for what happens after 2030, beyond the window agreed at Paris.

Instead, carbon emissions continue to inexorably grow in the developing world.

As usual he claims we are “falling behind” everybody else, even though the UK is on course to hit its Carbon Budget targets at the end of this decade, and even though we are still planning to build a Saudi Arabia of wind. And, as ever, he confuses the size of China’s economy with ours:

image

Doubling wind and solar capacity to 1200 GW may sound impressive, but with demand for electricity rising even faster, only about 15% of China’s electricity will come from wind and solar in 2030, much less than we are producing now. Meanwhile coal power will carry on increasing to meet ever higher demand.

It’s strange how China has not embraced Net Zero in the way that we have!

AEP likes to rattle on about how cheap wind and solar power is, but always ignores the problem of how you can actually run an economy on weather dependent renewables. Yet if they really were so cheap, then why do we even need COP27s?

Of course, there’s nothing King Charles would like better than to lord it up at COP27, and indulge his passion of telling us plebs how we should live our lives. And that is precisely why he should not go.

39 Comments
  1. GaryC permalink
    October 7, 2022 2:14 pm

    Well he is away with the fairies. I’ll not say which “he” I am referring to!

  2. Jack Broughton permalink
    October 7, 2022 2:23 pm

    Perhaps the comment : “Yet if they really were so cheap, then why do we even need COP27s?” should be sent to our henny-penny MPs and reporters.

    If CO2 were really as dangerous as we were all told in 1990 we would all be under water and suffering from permanent droughts at the same time! It seem that Al Gore might have got it wrong.

  3. Chris Phillips permalink
    October 7, 2022 2:31 pm

    We still are hearing claims (and AEP continues to make them) that Tuvalu and other Pacific islands are “sinking under water”. The implication is that this is due to sea level rise – this projected rise being the result of models and not direct observation. Is there any actual observational evidence that any Pacific island is actually losing land because of sea level rise – and not due to land sinkage?

    • Sceptical Sam permalink
      October 7, 2022 2:38 pm

      Is there any actual observational evidence?

      No. None.

      In fact the evidence is to the contrary:

      “Despite a cumulative sea-level rise of 15 centimetres since 1971, an analysis of all 101 islands in Tuvalu’s atoll chain by coastal geomorphologist Paul Kench and colleagues Murray Ford and Susan Owen has found that Tuvalu’s land area has actually increased by 2.9% (74 hectares).”

      https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/tuvalu-rising/

    • October 7, 2022 4:17 pm

      Ahaaaaaaa! A thinking man. If you do not already know, google Atholl and see what it is. Atolls sink, that is what atolls do because atolls are extinct subsea volcanos and the sinking is caused primarily because the oceanic plate upon which they are located moved away from the hotspot which created them in the first place. So it subsides as well as getting eroded. Corals attach themselves and then there is a race between coral growing up….and the atoll going down. Sometimes like now you will see the coral gaining ground but it is temporary geologically speaking. Guess which always wins in the end?
      Absolutely NOTHING to do with their claimed origin. Also just to show how dishonest they all are they wax lyrical about locations like atolls and deltas subsiding faster than everywhere else as if sea level is some mysterious force that gangs up on poor third world locations. Funny how the Netherlands never figures in their performance art which is what their klymutt thyenth has become.

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 7, 2022 2:36 pm

    So Australia, NZ and Canada have all, like the UK signed up to NZ; as independent sovereign nations. Hmmm. Very smelly. Smacks of UN push (putsch?) to bring about OWG.
    Furthermore, I doubt very much tgat Tuvalu is sinking beneath the waves.

  5. catweazle666 permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:14 pm

    Don’t worry Paul!
    No-one ever went far wrong doing the opposite to AEP’s recommendations!

  6. October 7, 2022 3:16 pm

    A curse on these acronyms. I have no idea who or what AEP is. Anyhow, whatever it is it has zero comprehension of the U.K. Constitution, which is perhaps understandable as it is largely unwritten, wisely.

    For its edification the U.K. Monarchy does NOT have political views.
    One of the last Charles’s we had as a Monarch was taught that lesson quite decidedly.
    Mucking about with these COP# political fiascos by our Monarch would be MOST unadvisable.

    • John Hultquist permalink
      October 7, 2022 5:11 pm

      A curse on these acronyms.
      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [AEP]

      Or go to: https://acronymfinder.com/
      There you can find a bunch of suggestions, but not Ambrose.
      Paul makes acronyms to suit the occasion. This is a fun part of reading here.

    • October 7, 2022 6:33 pm

      Unwritten constitutions are worth the paper they are written upon: Your rights are at the whim of the current powers that be. Even with a written constitution, U.S. citizens’ rights are up to the whims of 9 people.

      From the 1970s Leftist Justices prevailed and extra-constitutional “rights” were invented by reinterpreting the words of the actual Constitution and inventing new constitutional concepts not originally contemplated by the Constitution’s writers. With a more conservative Court much of that crap is being weeded out.

      • October 7, 2022 9:59 pm

        Yes you are probably right we humans are pretty ghastly and will twist anything if given the chance.
        I still prefer the unwritten option as it cuts out pre-emptive whims.

  7. ancientpopeye permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:19 pm

    No he should certainly not, if he carries on meddling I and lots more will become Republicans.

  8. October 7, 2022 3:26 pm

    I wish these people would stop living out their masochistic fantasies at my expense.
    If he needs to feel pain, he should visit a dominatrix and pay for it himself.

  9. mjr permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:32 pm

    BBC talking some total b*llocks linking excess deaths to this summers “heatwaves”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63171417

    • October 7, 2022 4:19 pm

      So, nothing new there then!

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      October 7, 2022 4:57 pm

      Nothing that needed covering up then?

    • Vernon E permalink
      October 8, 2022 2:45 pm

      And the Saturday Telegraph!

  10. Gamecock permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:37 pm

    ‘Big Money and Big Industry’

    Odd, he doesn’t seem to mind Big Government. That’s what he really wants for Christmas.

  11. Penda100 permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:41 pm

    AEP is a believer is AGW, Climate Change/Crisis/Catastrophe/Collapse and the latest, Breakdown. Like all true believers, CO2 has obviously rotted his brain.

  12. Robert Christopher permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:50 pm

    Can anyone verify these assumptions and calculations because, if true, it does demolish the Green Agenda’s credibility?

    When electricity generation capacity is quoted for wind farms, it assumes output at a constant wind, speed, at the maximum velocity that the windfarm has been designed to generate electricity.

    We know that is rare occurrence, if done at all over any meaningful duration.

    IIRC, there was a recent article here stating that, there was a windfarm in the North Sea, and that any windspeed was as likely as any other, up to the permitted maximum. It can therefore be expressed as a linear accumulative distribution, X. The area under the curve, between t0 and t1, will be proportional to the amount of air passed through the wind farm blades in that time interval.

    The available Power distribution will be proportional to x-cubed, X**3, so the area under the curve, between t0 and t1, will be proportional to the available energy from having that air passed through the wind farm blades in that time interval.

    Integrating X**3, to find the total energy generated between, when the wind velocity is zero and the designed maximum, which has been normalised to one, gives us: 0.25 * X**4, which when evaluated between zero and one is 0.25, or 1/4.

    Integrating the Power distribution, when the wind is constant and at the windfarm’s maximum capability, because of the normalisation, it will give a value of 1. So we can say:

    When a windfarm’s maximum capacity is quoted, assuming the distribution of the wind velocity is not dependent of the velocity, the average power will be only a quarter of this, and any excess power can only be utilised if 100% efficient electricity storage is used to allow the generated electricity to be used when needed.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      October 7, 2022 6:32 pm

      North Sea wind speeds can be found at
      https://windy.app/forecast2/spot/381566/North+sea/statistics

      As for 70% time in the winter months wind speeds are below optimum and the output depending cube of windspeed it doesn’t look good .

      A specific study, “As part of the objective to describe the wind climate of the North Sea and the coastal zone, specifically with regard to wind energy applications” is here.
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167610597002857#:~:text=Statistical%20analysis%20of%20the%208-year%20datasets%20shows%20that,in%20the%20North%20Sea%20analysed%20in%20earlier%20work.

      It doesn’t look good either

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      October 7, 2022 6:47 pm

      The best introduction to the variables in the economics of wind is this tutorial

      http://xn--drmstrre-64ad.dk/wp-content/wind%20/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/wres/calculat.htm

      It’s a little dated in the sense that it was written in the days when turbines were smaller, but it allows you to plug in your own data. The whole tutorial takes a while to work through but you will gain a really good understanding if you persevere.

      The energy in wind increases with air density (governed by air pressure, temperature and humidity) and the cube of wind speed. Turbines do not extract that energy on a fixed ratio. They generate nothing at all below a cut in speed, and only rather inefficiently at slightly higher speeds. There tends to be a sweet spot close to generator capacity where they extract around 75% of the theoretical maximum. The following chart shows how the efficiency varies for a typical turbine. Mouseover the points to see the associated generation.

      https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GqyyC/1/

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      October 7, 2022 9:44 pm

      Robert Christopher:
      The figure you might like is 0.8% of the time above 98% nominal capacity i.e. about to be shutdown to avoid damage.
      3.2% of the time generating 94% (or if you like 2.4% generating between 94 and 98% of capacity), and 8.3% of the time generating at or above 85%, and 50% of the time generating at or above 40% of supposed capacity.
      Figures from a German survey of their off-shore wind farms in 2018 – Sorry but I’ve lost the link.

  13. catweazle666 permalink
    October 7, 2022 3:54 pm

    Very important post from Judith Curry’s site:
    https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/03/the-penetration-problem-part-i-wind-and-solar-the-more-you-do-the-harder-it-gets/

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 9, 2022 11:43 am

      Is part 2 going to be ‘the more expensive your electricity gets’ since that is what happens everywhere solar and wind are increased on the grid.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        October 9, 2022 5:04 pm

        Wait and see!
        But I won’t be surprised if it is exactly that

  14. tomo permalink
    October 7, 2022 4:49 pm

    Never simply echoing what American investigative reporters were already writing about the Clintons, Evans-Pritchard aimed to trump them with disclosures far more stunning and consequential — and then bask in the glory bestowed upon him by radio talk-show hosts and Internet crazies. Evans- Pritchard’s work, such as it is, consists of little more than wild flights of conspiratorial fancy coupled with outrageous and wholly uncorroborated allegations offered up by his “sources” — largely a collection of oddballs, drug dealers, prostitutes, and borderline psychotics.

    Ambrose hasn’t moved far in many folk’s opinion

  15. John Hultquist permalink
    October 7, 2022 5:15 pm

    U.K. Monarchy does NOT have political views.

    Seems like a good idea, but is this historical — when and what?
    Us folks in the former colonies must have missed this memo.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      October 7, 2022 6:49 pm

      The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and has been beginning in the early 18th century. Queen Anne (of Queen Anne’s War) was the last monarch to veto parliament in 1708. The subsequent Hanovarian monarchs did dictate/influence policy, Catholic Emancipation for example. It all ended with Queen Victoria who still had influence.
      I guess the forced abdication of Edward VIII was a better result for the monarch than Charles I had and Charles I is probably a better start point for reduction of the power of the crown than 1215 and Magna Carta. By convention the monarch should just advise, if Charles III choses to interfere then there could be issues.

      • John Hultquist permalink
        October 7, 2022 8:48 pm

        Thanks Ben.

  16. October 7, 2022 5:35 pm

    Will King Charles’ presence and advocacy do more to reinvigorate the Green agenda or confirm the notion of Green elitism that is out of touch with the needs of ordinary people? Given the energy crisis that Europe and the UK find themselves in, I concur with AEP, let him go and campaign. England’s monarchy and its industrial base may end up traveling down the same road together.

  17. Philip Wood permalink
    October 7, 2022 7:16 pm

    Why didn’t AEP advocate that the late Queen should have attended various COP meetings during her reign ? Her majesty was so particular in NOT indulging in any of the politics or other possibly contentious areas. Of course KC III should not attend COP 27.

  18. October 7, 2022 7:27 pm

    Either the government represents the UK at COP27 or the monarch does, but not both. Since there are negotiations, the monarch is ruled out.

  19. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 7, 2022 8:58 pm

    OK, AEP, here’s the deal: If you were to run your home and office on ‘carbon-free’ wind and solar, do you think you’d get 24×7 power? And if you didn’t, would you be happy for your neighbours to pay for the supply of backup to your home/office? Actually, would you be happy to pay for the backup yourself?
    You’re a tool, Ambrose. (that’s not a typo).

  20. October 8, 2022 7:44 am

    Quote:- “AEP likes to rattle on about how cheap wind and solar power is, ”

    Given that the U.K. has sufficient generating capacity to keep the grid running when wind and solar are near zero output and much of that capacity is running when renewables are contributing a lot, it seems to me that if no renewables had been built we still would have power but saved all that money ?
    Yes we would have paid more in fuel for the conventional generators but nothing like the cost of the renewables.

    Simply how can they be cheap?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 9, 2022 11:47 am

      And if wind and solar are so cheap, why has my ‘100% renewable’ electricity from Shell Energy gone up?

      Yes, I know they are lying because their own documents say so by highlighting how little solar and wind energy are generated but include the statement that REGOs excuse the lies.

  21. Steve permalink
    October 8, 2022 8:19 am

    At the time of the forced abdication of King Edward VIII, the public did not know of his treachery in persuading a mad German, who he had met on more than a few occasions, to bomb the UK. He was hoping that the Nazis would leave the British empire with him as a puppet king.
    Charles has been visiting another mad German. with his subversive leaders set up in many countries in Europe and the Commonwealth and has called for a military style campaign to achieve his zero carbon agenda and save the planet from imminent extinction, in his view. Over the past year this campaign has been put into operation with the banks and industry chasing ESG targets which have resulted in less than half the previous gas and oil investment. The resulting shortages have lead to a price explosion starting before the Ukrainian war. This was planned and Herr Schwab, Charles and the other self promoted Green zealots have no qualms about forcing the population into fuel poverty. They have no worries about householders having to spend £20,000 on heat pumps that don’t work or more on insulation. Or that a cold winter may be approaching with little heating and power cuts. They have no concept of the impossibility of wind and solar generation or energy storage for more than a day.
    By making himself prominent again at the latest COP fest at a time when the effect of his folly will be apparent, he will put the monarchy back to it’s state when his great uncle messed up.

    • Steve permalink
      October 8, 2022 8:24 am

      Oops.Its

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: