Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Crisis, What Crisis?

Christopher Booker was on his hobby horse about Britain's energy policy at the weekend.  It is a mess.

In 2007 the Scottish government increased their energy policy to 50% of electricity to be drawn from renewables by 2020 with an interim target of 31% by 2011.  No mention was made about the source of the investment needed to produce these extraordinary figures, but we know what most of it will be - massive hikes in utility bills.  That's the crisis. The consumer is going to have to pay for these targets.  People like me will no longer be able to keep their homes warm and will be forced to sell and move to expensive one-bedroomed boxes - so well insulated that fresh air isn't welcome - or try for council accommodation, which doesn't exist.  Otherwise they can just slowly fade away with hypothermia. All in the cause of boosting the coffers of the energy companies.  I digress.

We also have the Westminster Climate Change Act which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, at a cost of up to £18 billion a year or £374 billion in total.  According to Booker and other climate change sceptical observers, none of this will have an impact on reducing overall CO2 emissions as we contribute less than 2% to the global total, while China's emissions alone increase by more than that every year.

As one of my readers commented recently (I publish this with his permission):

Is it possible that the fools in parliament who voted for this were mentally incompetent and lacking in any knowledge and judgement of what they were voting on, were advised by cretins who equally were on a religious war and were even more lacking in knowledge of the subject, and therefore the vote and the act should be stricken from the law of the country as being impossible to attain. If a law is impossible, should it not be stricken from the statute?

How they could pass into law a piece of rubbish about CO2 without a clue as to what was going on, makes one wonder about the rest of the laws of the land.
If you haven't read James Delingpole on the subject of climate. It's certainly worth a few minutes of your time. We're not being receptive enough to government brainwashing by all accounts.

It does make you wonder doesn't it?


RMcGeddon said...

You're preaching to the converted with me SR. You've got your work cut out persuading SNP supporters like Alex Porter , cynical etc. I reluctantly gave up ;)
If the SNP's supporters believe in the global warming scam then there's no point wasting your energy on the thing.
You could march them over to Denmark or Spain and show them the farce that it is but it's pointless. Their minds are closed and they will go along with the Scottish £8Bn scam until the bitter end.

subrosa said...

RM, I'm not giving up. :) The SNP's energy policy is to do with jobs and they're hoping enough money will be made from renewables to fund these jobs and leave a profit. We have no industry left so we've decided get into this scam. There's big money here and the SNP know it.

What they've forgotten is that the start-up money has to come from somewhere and the utility companies aren't going to put their hands in their pockets, so it'll come from consumers. People with me will vote with their feet if their bills go higher.

It's the Emperor's new clothes RM and no government is going to admit it's all jobs for the boys. Where are the benefits for you and me? Nowhere. We don't even enter into the equation. Now, with most policies there's a plus and minus factor for the voter. With this one it's completely minus. I want something in return for my money.

Joe Public said...

Invest in Electric Eels.

A bath-full should power a kettle & a couple of tellys; a swimming pool full may power a house.


Should we set up a fish-farm business SR?

cynicalHighlander said...



Nuclear is 4 times more expensive than wind.


30yrs economically available uranium left.

As you say you gave up!

Joe Public said...

cynicalHighlander @ 19:54

1. "Nuclear is 4 times more expensive than wind."

On calm (& very windy) days, it's not. Would you want to be on an electrically-powered Life-Support machine fed via wind turbines?

Wind Turbines are, by definition, totally useless at providing any 'base-load'.

2. "30yrs economically available uranium left."

Rubbish:- Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand, that is sufficient for 85 years, according to the study, also known as the ‘Red Book.’ Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2,500 years.


cynicalHighlander said...

The Red Book is full of assumptions not known supplies of uranium.


Why has the price jumped to 47+ dollars from single figures per pound and expected to rise to 100. 33tons per plant per annum.

Joe Public said...


Of course "cleanenergywonk" & "The Oil Drum" are completely unbiased, with no vested interests.

Would you hazard a guess at why a Fast-Breeder reactor is so called?

Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

Joe Public said...

Was your response to the Question "Would you want to be on an electrically-powered Life-Support machine fed via wind turbines?" in invisible ink?

cynicalHighlander said...

Any fast breeders working yet? They have been doing the research for years as to the Oil Drum they are a non aligned bunch of individuals who if you have a look are only interested in all forms of energy and other things on this 'finite' planet so have no axe to grind oneway or another.

France has to import electricity on a regular basis through planned/emergency shutdowns of its dependence on nuclear.


As to subsidies it is the most heavily publicly funded industry going meaning it is uneconomic because of its complexity.

cynicalHighlander said...

Wind is part of an energy mix, hydro, wave, tidal, all in there infancy creating no waste to then spend money on indefinately clearing up and scratching ones head wondering what to do with it.

People forget that a dedicated fossil fuel electricity generator needs to be assigned to a Nuclear power station 24/7 365days a year till the year dot whether they produce any power or not. An utter waste of money and energy.

Smoking Hot said...

With Joe 100%

RMcGeddon said...


Sadly you're wasting your time with cynical.
You could mention France I suppose. 80% of their electricity is from nuclear power. They export 20% of their power generation to the rest of Europe.
Or mention that Denmark has finally stopped building windmills after 10 years and thousands of windmills . They ran out of space for more windmills but they still need the same number of conventional power stations and their CO2 emissions are up 36%.
But I wouldn't bother. Waste of effort really. You will get bombarded with meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Joe Public said...


I mentioned FBRs to counter your wrong claim of 30 yrs economically available uranium.

FBRs have been built and operated in the USA, the UK, France, the former USSR, India and Japan.

The source you quote for the '30 year' claim continues......“by 2050, all proven and undiscovered reserves of uranium will be over.” Spot the oxymoron?

Again, your same source continues "Dr Goswami agreed that atomic fuel was limitless if a government went in for breeder reactors. "

So at 1-for vs 2-against from your own chosen source, I'd say that's very selective quoting.

Yes, wind is part of a mix. Just as is nuclear. Neither (or even any single type) can provide for all our needs.

I'm intrigued by the claim that a dedicated fossil fuel generator needs to be on standby to to a nuclear power station? Every country / power source needs a proportion of standby - to meet peak demand (1 in 20 or 1 in 50 winter etc). With inter-country Interconnectors, security-of-supply is magnified.

Wave & Tidal are continuous & predictable, but costly; wind needs even-more standby than nuclear.

A rarity is to see all turbines on a wind-farm operating simultaneously.

Also, compare the predicted-output vs actual measured output on virtually any wind turbine - from the smallest single unit to the largest farms. Very few get anywhere near their projected output.

Joe Public said...

Thanks for the advice RMcG. Trouble is it took me more than 5 mins to compose the rebuttal. [Your posting wasn't 'up' when I started.]

cynicalHighlander said...

JB can you link any FBRs in operation as you say the UK has them, Dounreay hasn't produced 1kw of energy ever in 5-6 decades of operation, any others working.

RM France regularly has to import electricity during the summer for a lack of cooling water, safety issues and on top of that they have a waste mountain which they haven't a clue in how to store.

Apogee said...

What a pity that the whole global warming/climate change fiasco has been built on the "chicken Little" scam, I'm sure all of us who are more than fifty years old will remember this story from their early schooldays, how a crazy chicken tried to convince the world the sky was falling.Those of you who believe this Government promoted crap, please go and study a little physics and realise what these fools are proposing,they could not accomplish what they say they can in a thousand years plus.Try to understand the magnitudes of the energy,and materials involved.
And, just for a minute think, if they could remove all the gases from the atmosphere they want to, right this minute,magically dissapear them, what would the planet be like, warm? cold? freezing? wet?. Forget computer models that dont work, the real answer is we dont know, and our governments want us to spend trillions of pounds/dollars/whatever of your money on some mad scientists mad dream?
This whole scam needs a rethink, an application of common sense,and there is too much money being made for them to stop voluntarily now.
But, 20 years from now, and we are back in the stone age, and they have to admit they were wrong, will you be happy to say, 'thats alright mate, we all make mistakes!'
Think,check things for yourself, lots of 'truths' we have been told have been shown to be false, go look for yourself, but do a good job, and when you find wrongness, complain to those responsible.It is your life they are messing with, time they earned the big bucks they are being paid, they are not being paid for mistakes, are you?

Anonymous said...

Oil is a renewable resource, the Earth hasn't stopped making it, and fuel efficiency gets better every year.

There are reactors out there that don't rely on uranium.

Two inconvenient truths for the price of one!

subrosa said...

Thank you Rightwinggit. The truth is always inconvenient for some.

Related Posts with Thumbnails