Revealed: How rising temperatures will affect our airports, rail network and power stations (Or not!)
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Someone should really sue Sky News for fraud:
Risk assessors looked at around 22,000 buildings and other infrastructure assets for Sky News using a "digital twin" of the UK to model how they fared at two different climates in the year 2100.
Britain’s critical infrastructure will be more at risk from extreme weather if the world wavers on its commitment to net zero targets, according to exclusive analysis for Sky News.
Power stations, transport networks and airports are all more likely to be damaged or disrupted as global average temperatures climb higher, data from risk assessors Climate X shows.
The UK government recently watered down green commitments to save money on household bills.
But analysis suggests that, if other countries do the same, there will be higher long-term costs from shoring up or repairing infrastructure to keep the lights on and supermarket shelves stocked.
Navjit Sagoo, science engagement officer at Climate X, said: "Net zero is not as expensive as doing nothing. Doing nothing is always more expensive.
Climate X advises insurance companies and businesses on climate risks and resilience.
It looked at about 22,000 buildings and other infrastructure assets for Sky News using a "digital twin" of the UK to model how they fared at two different climates in the year 2100.
In the first, the global average temperature rose by 1.6C from pre-industrial levels and would only be achieved through rapid cuts to greenhouse gases.
In the second, the global temperature rose by 4.3C, consistent with much weaker climate action.
The results show that power stations, rail and Tube stations, motorway junctions and airports were all more at risk from at least one climate hazard at the higher temperature.
"Our infrastructure wasn’t built to withstand these kind of climate extremes," said Dr Sagoo.
"We will have hotter weather, so things will be stressed more from the heat, and we’ll have wetter weather as well."
Of the 4,000 energy facilities analysed, 100% were at risk from storm damage at 4.3C, compared with just 60% at 1.6C.
Climate X took a closer look at Pembroke and Staythorpe power stations, which provide electricity to nearly seven million homes.
With rapid cuts in carbon emissions, the Pembroke site is likely to flood every 60 years and Staythorpe every 40 by the end of the century.
But with weaker climate action, then Pembroke could flood every 42 years, and Staythorpe every 17.
Climate X also assessed the risk to more than 14,000 rail and Tube stations.
In the cooler of the two scenarios studied, 61% would be at risk from storms and 18% from subsidence by the end of the century.
But in a far hotter future, that increases to 100% and 28%.
Road transport could also become more difficult in the hotter of the two possible future climates, with 18% of motorway junctions at risk of river flooding.
Keeping the rise in temperature to just 1.6C would put 11% at risk of flooding.
"It definitely becomes more real when you think about climate change in terms of infrastructure rather than just warming," said Dr Sagoo.
"The train station you rely on to go to work, that’s going to be flooded. Or the airport you use to go on holiday will be impacted.
"The more severe the warming is, the more frequently those events are going to happen."
The UK is already seeing more extreme weather as global temperatures rise, so far up 1.1C since pre-industrial levels.
The final sentence is an outright lie, and the assumption of 4.3C is for the birds. Meanwhile Pembroke and Staythorpe power stations are gas-fired so they will have been long shut down by 2100!.
They also claim that airports will be badly hit by storms. Heaven know where they get that nonsense from, because storms are declining in strength because of global warming, not getting stronger.
But what really affects airports is snow and ice, which are responsible for most closures. And a warmer climate will mean less snow!
Climate X, who produced this bunkum for Sky, earn their money from advising businesses on climate risks.
In my opinion, any companies which pay this tin pot company a penny are throwing shareholders’ money down the drain. They’d be better off asking Mystic Meg!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s a wonder countries in hotter climes, which is most of them, can function at all.
Well, I’m in South Africa (which tends to get quite hot). And it doesn’t function AT ALL!
And once again, models used as real data. Real, inasmuch as the average reader, counter-intuitively, won’t know it’s not real world.
Their reliance on modelling sticks out like the sorest of thumbs. Idiots assume it’s the truth.
It’s funny, models fail all the time – OBR forecasts, BoE inflation, IMF growth, HS2 costs, Covid – yet still people believe in the climate models even though they are far, far less likely to be right than those that constantly go wrong.
Haven’t we already reached temperature rise of 1.2c? Where is all the disaster? Where is the 12 ft sea level rise? Where is all the drought , famine, flood, fire, hurricane etc. that will happen at 1.6? We’re almost there, shouldn’t there be something happening if all this is true? I can’t believe anyone believes the nonsense anymore. When will the craziness stop? Oh that’s right…..never.
1.2C since the end of the Little Ice Age is next to nothing. We need a lot more warming, which, coupled with the increased CO2 will make a huge benefit to plant life.
And how do they ascertain true temperature around the world. With increased urbanisation, reduction in remote sensing and bias averaging one would be forgiven for being sceptical…
“nonsense; rubbish (used to express contempt or disagreement, or as an exclamation of annoyance).” The online definition of “Bollocks” – they forgot to add Sky News Articles.
Well, it certainly won’t bother any of us here thats for sure.
I understand that Finland has a 365/24 average annual temperature of ~4ºC and Singapore has 365/24 average annual temperature of 28ºC. Both countries seem to cope quite well.
Climate change bullshit increase is just because the COP 28 is running, however I have a feeling that people are starting to dismiss these obvious lies as false propaganda. You can only cry “WOLF” so many times.
It’s funny. I’ve heard double-ought zero about COP28 for a week. Nobody outside of Dubai cares.
They timed this year’s festival of hot air and troughing very badly. Hamas’s murderous rampage in Israel and their response has attracted global media coverage and even pushed the west’s war in Ukraine off the pages – but then today’s media can only do one war at a time. Here, the scandal of immigration – both legal and illegal – backed up by the wave of antisemitism on the streets courtesy of these unwanted people and Sushi’s contortions in trying to deal with it have taken centre stage here. Chuck in a bit of the Duke & Duchess of Woke and the Royal Family, what hope does the COP have?
‘Britain’s critical infrastructure will be more at risk from extreme weather if the world wavers on its commitment to net zero targets, according to exclusive analysis for Sky News.’
“If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog.” — National Lampoon, 1973
Should be “at more risk” surely!
I don’t know why they bother with the “analysis”. The assumption is it will be worse so obviously if you use that assumption there will be higher risks. A model out 70 years or more has no value so why bother?
It’s salesmanship. Like a used car dealer. They say “analysis” to get people to believe. ‘Exclusive analysis’ is even betterer.
‘Navjit Sagoo, science engagement officer at Climate X, said: “Net zero is not as expensive as doing nothing. Doing nothing is always more expensive.”‘
Moron. He has no clue as to the time value of money. Does ‘science engagement officer’ mean “incompetent boob?”
And not just time value but certainty. Future costs are unknown and unknowable. We can guess but that’s all. Would I spend £10 now to possibly avoid £11 in the future? Well, that depends on how certain the £11 is.
I very much doubt whether much of our current infrastructure will still be around in 72 years. So this just stupid.
Sky News
Britain is sending tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere because its electricity grid operator is prioritising gas-fired power stations over battery storage, Sky News has found.
National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) has been dramatically under-using the battery storage available to it, skipping those cells and relying instead on other power sources, including fossil fuels.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-pumping-more-than-70-000-tonnes-of-extra-carbon-emissions-into-atmosphere-sky-news-finds-13025768
What battery storage would that be?
My unsubstantiated guess is that it is more expensive to use battery systems rather than gas to supply peak electricity and so battery is left on the shelf as a last resort.
And keep the lights on for a few more seconds. There’s less than 3GWh of battery available.
‘The unnecessary emissions are equivalent to the annual discharge from 44,000 petrol cars, Sky News finds.’
What is that in Hiroshima bombs?
Battery storage is a “let them eat cake” solution. Just like EVs.
Sky Newts is oblivious to the battery storage business. In their decadence, they assume battery storage is built just for them. They think people invest billions just to wait for an emergency to bail their asses out.
The battery storage BUSINESS model is to arbitrage variability in electricity prices. Should an emergency arise, the batteries may have already been discharged to take advantage of a price spike. Depending on how the weather problem evolves, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that even with 100gWh of storage, double-ought zero will be available when the emergency starts.
Battery storage is privately owned and operated, for the owners’ benefit. They have no duty to hold back power in case there is an emergency, nor do they even have the ability to know when an emergency is going to happen.
Whenever you hear ‘battery storage,’ think “decadence.”
Off topic:
Justin Rowlatt has just returned from COP 28 . I am not sure that he is receptive to new ideas but he was given BBC time this morning on Farming this Week to talk about less meat eating. He would have been better off watching Harry Metcalfe on Harry’s Farm ( You Tube) who explains why animal rearing is a valid part of mixed farming in the UK.
In the past, our ancestors seemed to know how to do things properly. Currently, we just seem to be going steadily backwards. Is this due to the creeping cancer of leftism spreading through everything and bringing its incompetence with it?
Certainly leftism is part of the problem. So is the cult of managerialism, the subordination of excellence and competence to the distractions of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and corporate rectitude.
“Climate X combines climate science and econometrics to deliver precise worldwide climate risk data.”
Geniuses! They are GENIUSES!
Because they get people to buy this stuff.
They are soooo cutting edge and trendy that they have a profile of the office dog on their our people page. One of their account managers comes from a background in contemporary dance. Couldn’t make it up as they say.
Navjit Sagoo has some warning signs in her education having been at Reading and Bristol Universities. ‘Environmental Earth Science’ at Reading and a PhD in climate modelling at Bristol. A year in between at Southampton University has no information of what she was doing there.
The reference to Pembroke power station is surprising. With no action to reduce
fossil fuels it might flood once every 46 years. With full fossil fuel elimination it will be shut down 100% of the time much sooner.
They get off to a bad start with the EDF header lying that their zero carbon electricity will save us money. Now that Shell Energy has been cleared to sell to Octopus they continue their 100% renewable lie by saying Octopus will supply the same.
It is possible to have government regulated mainstream news where they MUST provide bona fides references to support their crap. Where are the joke fact checkers?