Killing Us To Save The World

A guest post by Apogee.

I wonder if the politicians are starting to realise the mess they are in with global warming.

In the 50's and 60's there were attempts to modify weather with spraying various things, dry ice, yes CO2 was one -I think bromide was another and we dont know what else. This should be stirred because the illegitimates are taking us to the cleaners.  The reason for the experiments was ostensibly to cause rain where the climate had become dryer than it used to be.  Manipulation of weather is still continuing and the German greens have brought the issue to the attention of the public.

If you think about the possibility of the planet cooling, the result of the current actions may be the reduction of coal and atomic power stations to nil and the realisation that there is not enough generation capacity to supply needs when we are in a situation where the coal mines have deteriorated to the point of being unusable. Having no quick means of increasing generating capacity, the government will need at least three years to get enough generating capacity of any kind and the quickest will be ........coal!  

By that time the country will be in increasing power deficit which will only be corrected at the end of the correction time. And if, as seems to be the case, the whole country will be literally be freezing to death. Never forget that although gas may be available - if you can afford it - central heating systems require electric power to operate and if the electric is not there the heating will not run. If the weather gets too cold the windmills will not turn so will not  generate, assuming that there is any wind to turn them.

So will the average citizen have back-up electric generation capability? Very unlikely and will there be fuel for it if available? Equally unlikely.

So what is the answer? Either a sudden outbreak of sanity and logical thinking by our politicians to get us out of the "green bubble" we are now in (and you thought the credit bubble was bad!) or the only sane alternative is to emigrate to any other country with a reasonable warm climate and living standards which will have you and your dependants; In other words become a refugee. Because it is very probable this country will no longer be able to pay the current levels of benefits and pensions that are paid now.

Apogee

Tweet

An Example of the EU Dividend

Five years ago Lithuania joined the European Union.

One of the conditions of its membership is that over 2,000 people would become unemployed on 31 December 2009.

On Friday the Ignalina nuclear plant delivered its last watt of electricity. This plant was Lithuania's only nuclear power plant and although it was dubbed unsafe due to its Chernobyl-style safety system, its shutdown was a key condition for Lithuania's entry to the EU.

Few across Europe will mourn the closure of an old 1970s Soviet designed nuclear plant, but the consequences for the Lithuanian economy will be severe. Up to now the plant daily produced more electricity than Lithuania's entire 3.5 million-strong population could consume.

The country will now have to import energy, where it exported it before and plans for a replacement plant are a long way off. There is no mention whatsoever about a renewables programme.

I wonder who will be the winner(s) in this one? Certainly not the people of Lithuania who will now be forced to import expensive electricity while the world is in the midst of one of the most severe economic crises.

Source

Tweet

Scottish Power in with a Shout for CCS Funding

The main topic of discussion on Newsnicht last night was how Scotland was going to provide power without nuclear. The tory MSP's information was out of date if today's Scotsman is to be believed.

'Boost to Scots bid for £1bn emissions cash as rival quits race' says the paper.

Most Scots knew that Scottish Power were up against E.ON in the bid for funding to capture emissions from power stations but E.ON has admitted it can't meet the competition deadline which demanded a full-scale working demonstration plant built by 2014. Although E.ON has been allowed to remain in the competition (no explanation given*), some experts say this makes Scottish Power the front runner for the cash.

If Scottish Power won the money to retrofit Longannet Power Station, it could pave the way for Scotland to lead the way globally in developing a technology crucial for the fight against climate change.

If CCS is developed successfully, it will be able to capture about 90% of the emission produced by coal-fired power stations. Nick Horler, Scottish Power's CEO, said : The Scottish Power consortium is ready to demonstrate CCS at a commercial scale at Longannet from 2014 ...".

Let's not get too optimistic here, but it would seem Scotland's in with a good chance to progress this revolutionary technology. Many say jobs will be lost because we refuse to build new nuclear power stations and that may be true, but CCS will attract many of those skilled workers from the nuclear industry.

* my insertion

Source

Tweet

Does Scotland Need Nuclear Power? BBC Landward

Tweet