By Paul Homewood
Indur Goklany has a new paper out with GWPF:
The full report can be read here.
By Paul Homewood
Germany’s drive towards a transition to renewable energy is being undermined by its continuing dependency on coal-fired power, according to GlobalData.
Their analysis leads them to believe that despite their best efforts coal will still backbone Germany’s economy for some time to come, despite a greater attempt to develop gas-fired power in order to reduce emissions.
While Germany’s installed renewable energy capacity is forecast to increase from 86.2 GW in 2014 to 147.4 GW by 2025, simultaneous coal-based power additions will undermine the country’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the research and consulting firm foresees.
The company’s latest report, Germany Power Market Outlook to 2025, Update 2015 – Market Trends, Regulations, and Competitive Landscape, states that renewables will dominate Germany’s energy mix by 2025, with their share of total installed capacity increasing from 44.7% in 2014 to 59.7% by the end of the forecast period, representing a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 4.6%.
According to Chiradeep Chatterjee, GlobalData’s Senior Analyst covering Power, this growth will be driven primarily by incentives provided under Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz). This Act, which came into force in 2009 and was amended in 2014, includes a requirement for grid operators to pay a minimum tariff to renewable energy producers.
Chatterjee says: “The German government has set an ambitious target to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020. The incentives provided to help achieve this target have created attractive investment opportunities in a rapidly-expanding renewable industry.
“Most opportunities will emerge in renewable sectors that have new and upcoming technologies, such as geothermal and offshore wind power, which are expected to grow at impressive CAGRs of 13% and 15%, respectively, between 2014 and 2025.”
However, the analyst warned, “The German government intends to phase out nuclear power by 2022. As renewable energy will be unable to replace fully the subsequent loss in nuclear capacity, due to its intermittent electricity generation, the country will shift its focus to coal-based power generation, meaning a rise in emissions.”
“With more than 3 GW of coal-based capacity expected to be added by 2020, the object of Germany’s renewable energy projects will be defeated. As a result, the government will veer more towards gas-based generation by 2025, although coal will still account for more than 60 per cent of the country’s thermal power capacity by the end of the forecast period.”
By Paul Homewood
Apparently the useless Slingo has won some “prestigious award”!
Could this be the same Julia Slingo who told MP’s in 2012, that global warming was contributing to colder winters and drought?
Then blamed it for wet winters?
Or the same Julia Slingo who told us last year,
“The UK had seen the "most exceptional period of rainfall in 248 years….We have records going back to 1766 and we have nothing like this.”
when her own data tells us this was untrue?
Or the same Julia Slingo who was contradicted by one of her own senior experts, who stated that there was no evidence that climate change was responsible for the wet winter.
Or the same Julia Slingo who, as Chief Scientist, was ultimately responsible for the 3-month outlook issued at the end of November 2013, which forecast “below average precipitation”, and “a significant reduction in precipitation in the western parts of the country”, (the very part that was worst hit).
Surely they cannot be the same person?
By Paul Homewood
In a surprise decision, Lancashire County Council’s Development Control Committee have rejected the advice of their own planning officers and thrown out Cuadrillo’s application to frack at the Little Plumpton site.
Incredibly, the reasons they give are impact on the landscape and noise:
1) The development would cause an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, arising from the drilling equipment, noise mitigation equipment, storage plant, flare stacks and other associated development. The combined effect would result in an adverse urbanising effect on the open and rural character of the landscape and visual amenity of local residents contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP11 Fylde Local Plan.
2) The development would cause an unacceptable noise impact resulting in a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents which could not be adequately controlled by condition contrary to policies DM2 Lancashire Waste and Minerals Plan and Policy EP27 Fylde Local Plan.
If this really was a concern, no application for windfarms would ever be approved, and for that matter any industrial development.
In reality, the Council have cravenly capitulated to the agenda of Greenpeace and other protestors, afraid no doubt of further trouble if they had gone ahead.
Significantly, they have not used any of the well worn, and well trashed, arguments usually wheeled out by Greenpeace, such as water pollution and earthquakes. If they had, I have no doubt they would have been thrown out in the courts.
We can only hope that the decision will be challenged by Cuadrillo, or overturned by the government.
In the meantime, a few facts that Lancashire CC might like to consider:
- Last year, the UK consumed 60.0 million tonnes oil equivalent of natural gas, 32% of all energy used.
- Natural gas production in the UK, from the North Sea and other sources, amounted to 32.9 Mtoe, leaving a shortfall of 27.1 Mtoe which had to be imported.
- North Sea proven reserves are 200 billion cubic metres, effectively just six years worth at current production levels.
- Output of natural gas in the UK has more than halved in the last ten years, from 86.7 Mtoe in 2004 to 32.9 Mtoe.
Demand for gas is likely to grow in the medium term, as coal is phased out.
Perhaps the enlightened councillors in Lancashire would like to tell us all where all this gas is going to come from, and how we are all going to heat our homes and generate our electricity?
Do they think it grows on trees?
By Paul Homewood
DECC have now published their Q1 electricity statistics, here are the highlights.
Compared to the same quarter last year:
1) Total generation is up slightly by 1.2%, partly a reflection of the mild winter last year.
2) The drop in coal power has been partially compensated by the increase in gas.
3) Wind power’s contribution to total generation has only marginally increased from 11.2% to 11.7%.
4) The biggest increase in renewables was Bio, up from 4.59 TWh to 6.70 TWh.
5) Solar barely registers with just 0.76% of total generation. This is an estimated figure, which DECC calculate from an theoretical load factor, and suggests that solar is only working at 5.2% of capacity at this time of year.
6) Electricity consumption increased in all sectors, except for Industrial, where, alarmingly, it fell by 7.0%.
By Paul Homewood
If there was any doubt about the pope’s anti capitalist credentials, the Guardian let the cat out of the bag:
She is one of the world’s most high-profile social activists and a ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism. He is one of the pope’s most senior aides and a professor of climate change economics. But this week the secular radical will join forces with the Catholic cardinal in the latest move by Pope Francis to shift the debate on global warming.
Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action. Klein, who campaigns for an overhaul of the global financial system to tackle climate change, told the Observer she was surprised but delighted to receive the invitation from Turkson’s office.
As for Turkson, I am not sure where his qualifications in climate change economics come from. It was only two years ago that the Huff Post were complaining about his homophobic views:
GayStarNews notes that Cardinal Peter Turkson, 64, of Ghana is a supporter of homophobic legislation and has defended Africa’s anti-gay laws on the basis of African culture.
Turkson claimed during a United Nations summit last February that such laws could be permissible in society because the "intensity of the reaction is probably commensurate with tradition," according to the National Catholic Register. “Just as there’s a sense of a call for rights, there’s also a call to respect culture, of all kinds of people,” he said when discussing the stigma surrounding homosexuality in Africa. “So, if it’s being stigmatized, in fairness, it’s probably right to find out why it is being stigmatized.”
Turkson also criticized U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who has called for Africa to decriminalize homosexuality and end discrimination based on sexual orientation. "When you’re talking about what’s called ‘an alternative lifestyle,’ are those human rights?” said Turkson, according to NCR. “He [Ban Ki-moon] needs to recognize there’s a subtle distinction between morality and human rights, and that’s what needs to be clarified.”
According to Wikipedia, he has no economics qualifications of any kind, but none of this stopped him penning the document “TOWARDS REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY” in 2011, which called for:
the establishment of a "global public authority" and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document, Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority was very specific, calling for taxation measures on financial transactions. It notes that “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said. The document condemned what it called "the idolatry of the market" as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. “In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an "ethic of solidarity" among rich and poor nations.
Watch your wallets!
By Paul Homewood
There has been some discussion of soot and its impact on Arctic ice recently, so I thought I’d throw this in.
I bought a white car a couple of months ago, my first for donkeys years. With it being white, it is really noticeable just how much black stuff is left on it every time it rains, particularly light rain.
I took the picture above today, after some light rain overnight, having washed the car on Friday. The black smudges have not been picked up while driving, but have been left behind as the raindrops dried up.
Having had dark coloured cars previously for many years, these black specks have been much less noticeable in the past.
What they are and where they have come from, I have no idea. But, as we don’t live next door to a smokestack, it would appear they are pretty widespread.
By Paul Homewood
I took a quick look at the latest BP Statistical Review a couple of weeks ago, but have now had a chance to look at in a bit more detail.
By Paul Homewood
A couple of weeks ago, the Financial Post had this piece from Nir Shaviv, which gives a lucid summary of his position on the influence of the sun.
The IPCC and others blame CO2 for increases in sea levels, ignoring evidence that shows the sun to be the cause.
For many years we have been told that global warming is unprecedented over the past 100 years, that human industrial activity is by far the dominant driver of 20th century climate change, and that nothing else is important.
Years ago, I too accepted this idea. After all, it came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was supposed to summarize the leading consensus on the subject. Having grown up in a solar house, it also naturally fit my environment-friendly background.
Read the rest here.
By Paul Homewood
Booker homes in on the latest BBC propaganda:
Here are recent examples of how mindlessly the BBC falls into its party line, on three familiar topics:
1. Those ‘850 New York lawmakers’
On no issue has the BBC’s coverage been more absurdly one-sided and unprofessional than energy and climate change: not least since that famous “secret seminar” set up by Harrabin in 2006, when the BBC’s top brass met with a roomful of climate activists to agree that the BBC must follow a propaganda line inseparable from that of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.
Just before Lancashire county council recently voted on an application to allow fracking, the BBC News website excitedly reported that “850 lawmakers” from New York state had sent a letter urging the council to refuse permission. It took that tireless blogger Paul Homewood (on Notalotofpeopleknowthat) to uncover that the letter was in fact signed by only 10 Democrat environmental zealots from nine little local councils.
Then, as part of the BBC’s campaign to promote that global “climate treaty” next December, Radio 5 featured a scary interview with a professor from a climate change committee set up by The Lancet. With all these droughts, floods and other “extreme weather events” caused by global warming, he warned, the threat to human health was now so great that before long it could kill “billions” of people.
This recalled a similar stunt pulled by the BBC and The Lancet in the run-up to the last failed “climate summit” in 2009, when another Lancet professor was wheeled on to claim that India had built a 4,500km-long fence along its frontier with Bangladesh solely to keep out “climate migrants”. The Indian government explained that the fence had nothing to do with global warming – it was to keep out drug smugglers, terrorists and “economic migrants”.
Again the BBC has lately been publicising studies by Professor Mike Lockwood claiming that the cause of the failure of global temperatures to rise for 18 years has been the lack of sunspots, threatening a new “Little Ice Age”. This recalls a post on the BBC website in 2007 headed “’No sun link’ to climate change”, publicising a paper designed to discredit the thesis that increased sunspot activity had been a major cause of the late 20th century warming. Its author, arguing that sunspots had nothing to do with it, was none other than Prof Lockwood.
Never fear, however, the Met Office has now rushed to the rescue. According to its computer models, any cooling caused by the lack of sunspots will only retard the world’s inexorable warming by two years, implying that by 2100 temperatures could have risen by as much as 6 degrees.
So far the BBC hasn’t picked this one up. But it will.
Read the full story here.