Bishop Hill Monbiot on wicked energy companies
Dec 28, 2010 Energy George Monbiot is bemoaning the wicked energy companies who are keeping energy prices high:
In 2002 the regulator, Ofgem, decided it would stop regulating consumer prices. The energy companies immediately increased their profit margins: tenfold in one case. When world energy prices rise, the companies raise their tariffs, often far more steeply than the wholesale price justifies. When they fall, domestic prices often stay where they are.
As several commenters note, this is an odd argument for someone who has been campaigning to increase energy prices in the name of saving the planet.
It's interesting to note from the Household Energy Price Index, however, that energy prices in the UK appear rather low compared to prices elsewhere.
Natural gas household customers in Stockholm pay by far the highest prices within the capital cities of the EU15. Prices in Stockholm are almost 70% higher than in the second most expensive city Copenhagen, and over 4 times more than Londoners who enjoy the cheapest prices.
I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that the wicked capitalists in the UK are stinging poor consumers far less than their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?).
Reader Comments (69)
In spite of the warnings on the box, Monbiot is running his Mental Inverter™ at the highest setting: 11.
He wants energy prices to be higher than they are but complains they are too high - even when they are not.
He has compared people who fly long haul with paedophiles. He is touring the USA next year - I wonder how he plans to get there ?
In spite of the warnings on the box, Monbiot is running his Mental Inverter™ at the highest setting: 11.
He wants energy prices to be higher than they are but complains they are too high - even when they are not.
He has compared people who fly long haul with paedophiles. He is touring the USA next year - I wonder how he plans to get there ?
It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?
Recent rises in household energy bills are due to the hidden g'reen' taxes imposed on energy companies by the government.
The government did this because they follow Monbiot's religion of AGW and wanted to do their bit to 'save the planet'.
So why is Monbiot moaning about this?
Has he never heard of the law of unintended consequences?
"...their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?)"
Cant speak for everywhere else, but for Copenhagen the answer is yes (and 99% positive also on Stockholm).
In Copenhagen roughly 47% of the consumer price is made up of VAT and various 'green' fees. The VAT rate is the standard Danish 25% making up about 43% of the 47% leaving the reminding 57% for green fees. In addition to this is a yearly fixed cost of just less than 100 Euro for grid and meter service.
Not really to the point, just if anyone was interested.
Happy New Year from Copenhagen
Hypocrisy in its purest form. Remove the blinkers George and try to remember how to be a journalist.
Monbiot maybe be flipping but on gas prices he is correct, though why he goes off on one is beyond my understanding given his normal drivel.....
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6898015.ece
The new tech in rock fracturing lead by U.S. companies has freed up uneconomic gas reserves even though the green lunatics in Europe want to ban it and leave them in the grips of the Russian supplies!
The claims that it will pollute water tables being the favorite attack even though the water tables are thousands of feet above the gas reserves....Oh well, so it goes on!
I should have added....Economic suicide!
Could one of you good guy on here that has not been banned from "CIsF" put the link up for me? I just cannot be beveled with registering again!
Actually, just before I go (been up all day with the cricket) I would hazzard a guess that JD will have a post up on the DT in the morning....He so loves to kick Monbiot where it hurts!
Typing as I think JD?
Booker and North have been going on about this for years now. Maybe Monbiot did not pay attention because their denialerism blinded him
This is just Monbiot plugging a book.
Interesting to note how Monbiot calls installing new insulation in a house 'greening'. Old people dying off should be even more of a 'greening' eh?
Pete Hayes. Monbiot may have to wait his turn, JD gave him a good kicking on the 21st ('like shooting rats in a bucket', as George would describe it), the blockbuster from Littlejohn in the Daily Mail and the 'pandora's box' unwittingly re-opened by Dunford on CRU, might have priority, (see the Bish's 'Comedy of Errors').
I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that the wicked capitalists in the UK are stinging poor consumers far less than their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?).
All due respect but countering Monbiot nonsense with more of one's own is not helpful. First, you segue from the price of UK electricity to that of Swedish natural gas without showing how the second is a reasonable index of the first. Second you make no allowance for taxes and the like though Sweden is known for both reliance on and heavy taxation of nuclear-generated power. Third, power generation in Sweden is partly state-owned and partly in private hands but is not, unless I completely understand it, a monopoly as you suggest.
More important, Monbiot’s real error is that he does not look at the relevant history. By 2002, world energy prices had in general fallen so low so that no-one in the UK power supply industry was making much by way of profit and nuclear generator British Energy none at all.
That and a successful campaign by suppliers such as ScottishPower and SSE to end guaranteed wholesale prices for nuclear product that had been (correctly) established at privatisation led to short-term but severe cash-flow problems for British Energy, its eventual collapse and subsequent bailout by government.
(When the bail-out was imminent, anxious employees in BE’s East Kilbride HQ could look out the window and see the usual eco-suspects performing the usual eco-stunts and in effect calling for them to get sacked. The eco-lobby “left-wing?” My arse.)
Well, they got their way; the HQ was transferred to offices in Swindon with all bar a few key EK staff being fired. BE’s mostly profitable overseas sectors were flogged off with the likes of a very healthy Westinghouse going for a song to a bemused but delighted Japanese company. The core business, despite being on the cusp of nuclear’s political revival, was flogged off after a short delay to the French state-owned EDF.
World energy prices were inevitably going to recover post 2002 and their subsequent sharp rise largely in the aftermath of the Iraq war is a familiar tale.
Whatever tosh Monbiot may serve up, accusations of profitering in the UK power supply industry are not inappropriate. Price fixing, though never proven, was an open secret for many years - the New Electricity Trading Arangements (NETA) were explicitly brought in to counter it. (By heavily punishing failure to supply, one incidental result of NETA was a significant increase in CO2 emissions at roughly the same time as the Renewables Obligations came into force.)
Besides, Monbiot is simply parroting recent OFGEM statements about price rises. (That he lacks any background in the topic doesn’t mean that OFGEM is wrong.)
The frequent claim made by electricity suppliers that these rises are caused by rising fuel costs and by investments required by the “green” agenda is partly true but it serves also as a disingenuous cover for a bit of good ol’ fashioned racketeering.
I know this really isn't the topic and this comes across as a bit of a shout from the wilderness but I'm currently banned from making any point of substance in the G and would have really liked to ask George the following in his piece as just occasionally he does give a response. However, I know that George reads this blog so he might deign to answer (sort of vicariously I suppose).
I've tried Zed but his 'robbers dog' paranoia presumably sniffed a trap of sorts.
I had another answer from someone else, 'when the world starts cooling' but again that can simply be spun as 'climate change (catastrophic one assumes) and so isn't good enough.
George is the man with the 'profile' so would be nice coming from him.
Ok....in rant mode, apologies.
George, can you please give an answer to the question as to which set of climate/weather etc anomolies/events etc would CONTRADICT AGW/CAGW/CACC etc?.
I would have asked this on your G piece but I am on 'pre-mod' at the mo and just know it would be wasted effort....
Thank you most kindly your grace for your forbearance.
Pete Hayes maybe you missed the dozens of youtube accounts like this one Faucet Water Ignites! Natural Gas in Well Water!
If you look at the analysis on This graph of Canadian Shale EROEI you'll see the net energy produced has been going down since production started. Unless shale gas suddenly becomes mush more efficient, Canadian shale is heading for a break even point before 2015 - where subsequent production is a net energy loss. i.e. it will cost more energy to extract shale gas than the energy it produces. This within 20 years of starting!
Shale Technology Will Go Down In Flames
Arthur Berman talks about Shale Gas
"If you investigate the origin of this supposed 100-year supply of natural gas…where does this come from? If you go back to the Potential Gas Committee’s [PGC] report, which is where I believe it comes from, and if you look at the magnitude of the technically recoverable resource they describe and you divide it by annual US consumption, you come up with 90 years, not 100. Some would say that’s splitting hairs, yet 10% is 10%. But if you go on and you actually read the report, they say that the probable number-I think they call it the P-2 number-is closer to 450 Tcf as opposed to roughly 1800 Tcf. What they’re saying is that if you pin this thing down where there have actually been some wells drilled that have actually produced some gas, the technically recoverable resource is closer to 450. And if you divide that by three, which is the component that is shale gas, you get about 150 Tcf and that’s about 7 year’s worth of US supply from shale. I happen to think that that’s a pretty darn realistic estimate. And remember that that’s a resource number, not a reserve number; it has nothing to do with commercial extractability. So the gross resource from shale is probably about 7 years worth of supply."
Shale is currently enjoying something akin to a boiler room scam IMO, it is certainly not the energy gap panacea it is made out to be for investors. YMMV.
@ Pete Hayes - The new tech in rock fracturing lead by U.S. companies has freed up uneconomic gas reserves even though the green lunatics in Europe want to ban it and leave them in the grips of the Russian supplies!
The green movement may have lost the plot over CAGW and climate science, but that does not mean there are not valid environmental concerns over gas extraction by the new rock fracturing techique. And it is not just Europeans who want to ban it - the purity of groundwaters in Pennsylvania and New York are at risk, as Susan Watt's discovered in her recent Newsnight investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/12/how_is_fracking_stacking.html . Evidently the shale gas and groundwater are not always distant from each other. Fracking involves the explosive injection of toxic chemicals into the rock surrounding the drill and just because the CO2 emmitted from fossil fuels is harmless does not mean that all aspects of their extraction are also. I am sure there are many CAGW sceptics like me who don't have any problem with being green / environmentally minded, I also live in Europe (towards the north of the Bish's diocese actually) so you have effectively labelled me as a lunatic. I can live with that, but it does the climate sceptic cause no good to label all environmentalists as lunatics; WWF and Greenpeace acheived some very good things when they were campaigning against habitat destruction i.e. clear felling of forests in British Columbia, logging for pulp and soya/beef production in the Amazon and palm oil in Indonesia - http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2010/11/video-greenpeace-and-the-media.shtml . If only they would go back to their roots.
Granny Smith is freezing because she can't afford to pay for her heating. Her neighbour Granny Jones is freezing because the drip pipe on her (Ed Milliband approved) condensing boiler is blocked by ice. I do hope Granny Monbiot is keeping warm.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/27/condensing-boilers-freeze-uk
Dreadnought
Thank you for the pointer to the condensing boiler article. A basic design problem for sure, but I just loved the advice at the end of the article once they explained how you can save a hundred quid by defrosting it yourself.
Once the boiler is working again it's time to think of a longer-term solution..
I think I will stick with my turf fire, thank you. The Greens haven't yet banned turf cutting in my nearby bog and I doubt any greenie will show up and tell the local boyos to stop cutting it. One of the advantages of Kerry.
@lapogus
'If only they would go back to their roots./
A sentiment that all too many of us share!
Typical Monbiot double-speak.
He is as useful as a one-legged man in an a***-kicking contest!
While no-one should be complacent about the excess winter deaths, it's worth putting the numbers in context - this report http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/deaths1110.pdf (Figure 2) shows that the rates have been falling steadily since the 1950s. During the 1950s and 60s excess winter mortality was around 60,000 - over double what it is today.
DR
During the 1950s and 60s excess winter mortality was around 60,000 - over double what it is today.
Are we speaking of sheep, hogs, or cattle? Surely excess winter mortality of humans is inexcusable.
So, when do we point out the IPCC predictions based on the postulated theory have been demonstrated to be wrong, and therefore - by the scientific method - the theory of global warming has been busted?
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/15681
Cheers and Happy Holidays!
To the true left-warmy the tax component doesn't count, especially if it's a 'green' tax.
What matters is the coin that goes into capitalist pockets. The sums plucked from the people's purses and hurled into the rapacious maw of government are a good thing.
@Frosty and lapogus
Fracture Lines :Will Canada's water be protected in the Rush to Develop Shale Gas
http://tinyurl.com/2bqlxtc
Not all potential shale gas deposits are deep or well isolated from groundwater. In Ontario a main potential shale is along the Niagara Escarpment and it is shallow.
The Munk Center put on a day long seminar on above topic, and it is quite informative, including participants from US (NY, PA etc)
http://hosting.epresence.tv/MUNK/1/watch/189.aspx
cheers
brent
Dreadnought. Thanks for the link to the condensing boiler article. My daughter had that problem just before Christmas. I tried to explain it to her over the phone from 200 miles away. Fortunately her neighbour knew all about the problem and disconnected the pipe for her - she is now collecting the condensate in a bucket until the thaw sets in.
Frost and brent
So, nuclear it is then.
Don Pablo - Surely excess winter mortality of humans is inexcusable.
I apologise unreservedly that my post came across as callous - that was not my intention.
I was shocked by the statistics quoted in George Monbiot's article, and looked for the sources on which they were based, hence the reference that I quoted, which I thought might be of interest. Excess winter mortality is the term that is used in the literature, and it seems to occur in many countries (which does not of course make it acceptable). There's a comparison of European countries here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732295/pdf/v057p00784.pdf.
There is a fairly comprehensive overview of unconventional shale gas potential in the UK by DECC. While DECC have to live with political genuflection to all things AGW, they have amassed much expertise in the conventional fossil fuel industry, and this report contains none of that bunkum.
https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/upstream/licensing/shalegas.pdf
I agree with comments above that shale gas is being too overhyped in the media, there are formidable hurdles to jump on the technical and environmental permitting side, let alone proving such wells have sustained economic viability. In any case it is hard to imagine any fraccing would ever be sanctioned here where it could endanger water supply aquifers- UK onshore environmental permitting is strictly enforced.
For those interested and who haven't come across it yet, Nick Grealy blogs on shale gas from a UK perspective - see here:
http://nohotair.typepad.co.uk/no_hot_air/
BBD when I looked into Nuclear I found a morass of conflicting info, this is a good summation of the picture I got...
"The forecast shows the uranium demand until 2030 based on the forecast of the
International Energy Agency in 2006 in its reference case (WEO 2006). Taking account of the
uncertainty of the resource data it can be concluded that by between 2015-2030 a uranium
supply gap will arise when stocks are exhausted and production cannot be increased as will be
necessary to meet the rising demand. Later on production will decline again after a few years
of adequate supply due to shrinking resources. Therefore it is very unlikely that beyond 2040
even the present nuclear capacity can still be supplied adequately. If not all of the reasonably
assured and inferred resources can be converted into produced volumes, or if stocks turn out
to be smaller than the estimated 210 kt U, then this gap will occur even earlier." pdf Link EWG-Series No 1/2006
This was in 2006, some 17-20% of production included in the above summation was supposed to be online in 2007 from the Cigar Lake mine in Canada, I use it as a barometer - it has still to produce anything, and when it does it's mostly contracted to China.
I think the UK needed to make these decisions 15 years ago, the energy gap is inevitable IMO.
"Natural gas household customers in Stockholm"
lol
There aren't any. Stockolm and Sweden is all electric, all generated from hydro and nuclear.
(Maybe a handful of totally irrelevant legacy gas users)
Still from the Guardian. Leo Hickman is getting a thorough roasting after exposing his own immense ignorance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/21/canada-sea-level-rise-photography?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
Great fun.
No disrespect BBD, but have you read the report at 2000 quid? because without reading the report, we're left with arm waving bullet points like...
"The US success in shale gas technology can be replicated in multiple locations world-wide" Which success would that be?
"Environmental issues surrounding water use, hydro-fracturing, well spacing and disruption to communities are more often the product of fear and myth, not present and future reality." (see above video)
"The greater environmental risks are likely to be those associated with not developing shale resources." likely? are there greater risks than not contaminating the ground water or not? which is "likely"?
"Similarly, the greater economic risks of shale increasingly appear those associated with NOT developing shale resources." appear? are they or not?
"Shale gas has the potential to reduce energy costs " potential? will it or won't it?
see what I mean?
During the 1950s and 60s excess winter mortality was around 60,000 - over double what it is today.
I hope you'll forgive me from quoting from my own blog: standstoreason.wordpress.com
It matters not whether the figures have been going down since the 60s. I will be very surprised if they don't go up again this winter and it is government (this one, last one, who cares?) that must carry at least part of the blame for its obsession with "green" energy.
Frosty
No, I haven't read the report, nor do I endorse shale gas (or not). The link was for general interest.
The argument about uranium resource depletion is complicated and there are those who argue that with the proper will we can extract it at an EROEI that makes sense from the ocean, forever.
And then there's thorium.
David MacKay provides more here:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
You have clearly been persuaded that an energy/financial catastrophe is inevitable, which is your right, but catastrophists always ignore technical innovation. Potential, if you like. This shuts down every discussion in the end.
Just compare and contrast with the CAGW position, for example.
But you are right to say that we should have started a nuclear build program at least 10 years ago.
"I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that the wicked capitalists in the UK are stinging poor consumers far less than their counterparts elsewhere - (state monopolies?)"
I made this point too on the thread. I live in Italy and gas and electricity have always been much much more expensive than the UK. Until recently both were state-run monopolies.
BBD I wouldn't say I ignore innovation, I've looked at all the potential energy replacements for oil, I agree there is potential, but nothing seems tangible or scalable right now, and now is when we need it.
If you think of money in terms of sweat equity, without cheap abundant energy, we have no way to repay what we have already borrowed from the future. We have seen the last of cheap abundant energy for the foreseeable future IMO, and therein lies the fundamental fulcrum.... did I nearly say tipping point :^)
I think that when citing higher mortality rates of the 1950's and 60's, two factors should be borne in mind:
a) Despite the Clean Air Act, the UK was still subject to periodic 'smogs' into the early 60's, and not only in big cities; I can recall as a youngster getting caught out on several occasions, a fearful breathing exercise, but for older people with latent health problems potentially lethal (and without the life-saving hospital medical equipment we now take for granted).
b) In those days, central heating was a rarity in ordinary houses (as indeed were fitted carpets). Homes were often draughty, and people huddled round the smoky coal/coke/gas fire - or like me did their piano practice in coat, scarf and gloves(yes!) in the unheated sitting room. Huh, kids today . . .
@BBD wrt nuclear
Nuclear propaganda 101 (Lovelock, Blix etc )
"All things nuclear are benign. But beware the Demon CO2. World about to end. Amen"
The nuclear industry have been prime pushers of the CO2 hoax because they figure to gain subsidies (via CO2 credits)
The uber -hysteric Gaian prophet Lovelock, who thinks "breeding couples" may have to escape to polar regions to escape the ravages of CO2, makes equally asinine prophesies in opposite direction about Nuclear.
Lovelock is a pimp for the nuclear industry
Ecolo: Nuclear Advocacy site
http://www.ecolo.org/
Lovelock: Ecolo’s Mascot
http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/
Chernobyl is no big deal according to Lovelock, in fact it's turned into a "deep ecologist's" paradise(i.e. devoid of humans) where wildlife flourishes !
http://tinyurl.com/2fmgkdv
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/chernobyl-wildlife-sanctuary/199
.But here's the really good news!. Our nuclear waste problem is solved since Lovelock has volunteered to have it dumped at his property to use as "home heating" fuel :)
Greens guru offers to bury nuclear waste in his garden
“I have offered to take the full output of a nuclear power station in my back yard,” said Prof Lovelock, who lives on the border between Devon and Cornwall.
“I would be glad to have it. I would use it for home heating. It would be a waste not to use it.”
http://tinyurl.com/ydtofab
On a serious note, I think a prime motivation of many of our pols, and of the nuke industry, is to escalate the energy issue to such a crisis point, that nuclear is seen as our one and only saviour . I.E. meaning we will pay almost any price to keep the lights on.
cheers
brent
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change :Lovelock
Since it is Lovelock’s comment about human ignorance that is our subject today, it is well to point out that Lovelock himself lacks the mental capacity to see the inconsistencies in his theory, despite being given plenty of time to notice them, and being given the able assistance of many critics.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2156
Hans Blix (a lawyer I believe) and longtime head of IAEA spouting the same nonsense (as Lovelock,David King etc)
Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government?
Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.
http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
Blix the WMD inspector, evidently doesn't think that all the DU sprayed around Iraq would be any sort of issue at all :(
John Silver:
Stockolm and Sweden is all electric, all generated from hydro and nuclear.
True at least for domestic users. More pertinent, domestic electricity is cheaper in Sweden than it is in the UK though the reasons for that seem to have little to do with the structure of the country's power-supply sector.
brent
If peak oil is coming, then we need to electrify transport. Nuclear would power that.
We need energy solutions.
And brent, I have read every anti-nuclear rant in the book. I agree about Lovelock etc etc.
Do you suggest further coal burning generation?
You and frosty are clearly convinced shale gas is a non-starter?
So I ask again - if not nuclear, then what?
or like me did their piano practice in coat, scarf and gloves(yes!) in the unheated sitting room. Huh, kids today . . .
Dec 28, 2010 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommentermikemUK
I was a child in a Scottish Farmhouse in the 50's and 60's. We got dressed and undressed in bed putting next days clothes between the blankets for extra warmth, and we used to have to scrape frost off the inside of windows and that was with a fire (coal, wood, peat and anything else that would burn) to stop the pipes above our bedroom freezing! God bless central heating and the money to pay for it.
@BBD
I'm not as negative about shale gas as Frosty, although I think it is being overhyped in general
I think there are situations where it could be exploited safely, and others where it is problematic.. In UK, sounds problematic from Pharos comments
I'm also not as concerned about nuclear fuel availability as Frosty. I don't have links at hand, however recall from previous research that resources go up dramatically with a little higher price.
I also agree that there is at least potential wrt Japanese process recovering uranium from seawater
http://tinyurl.com/2fnhrob
In situation in UK, the first thing I would do, is intensively investigate what kind of deal/commitment you could make with the Norwegians for supply via cable.Unless I'm missing something, and I may well be, you're way behind everyone else in this regard. It's access to "storage capacity" ( eg from reservoir hydro) that is the enabler that makes many other things easier.
It is shortage of "storage capacity" that makes things difficult.
The Norwegians have for quite some time supplied peak for the Danes( when all those windmills aren't turning) and I believe the Danes coal firing supplies some base load for the Norwegians.
I think an interconnection was also recently installed from Norway to Holland as well.
I'd try to see what kind of commitment one could get from Norway as a first and urgent priority, then proceed from there.
cheers
brent
a bit of an MSM breakthrough?
28 Dec: Boston Herald: Michael Graham: ‘Warming’ up to junk science
According to members of the government/science funding axis pushing the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming – aka “Your Pick-Up Is Frying Our Planet” – the mountains of snowfall across North America actually prove the Earth is warming. Believe it or not, they say, warming actually makes the Earth colder…
That very day a Professor Stephan Rahmstorf released a report saying climate change means “we have to anticipate milder winters rather than cold ones,” and that even our “cold” winters have gotten “warmer.”
He says more warmth, not more cold, is proof of global warming. And who is this nut? He’s a scientist at the same Potsdam Institute.
Which is why “climate change” is the perfect mantra of the modern bureaucrat and big-government activist: The evidence always proves you right.
You might be surprised, for example, to learn that “from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.” You might be even more surprised by the news that, since 2002, temperature trends have been downward, though by statistically insignificant amounts.
But the real kicker is that the guy who happily reported these facts is uber-warming activist Dr. Phil Jones - one of the lead scientists in the “Climate-gate” scandal.
Being a normal person who’s not keen on spending thousands more each year to heat your home - one of the results of cap-and-trade - you might find these facts significant. You might want to slow down on the global warming panic until it starts getting . . . you know, warm?...
Meanwhile climatologist Piers Corbyn warned London of a white Christmas weeks ago. His models have been far more accurate than the UN-approved “science,” but he’s ignored.
Why? Because Corbyn’s research shows the sun has far more to do with climate patterns than your Prius does. Unfortunately, there’s no money to be made at places like the Potsdam Institute studying things like the sun. No legislature can regulate excessive solar output, and there are no jobs to hand out at the Department of Sunshine Control…
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1305752&srvc=home&position=emailed
Yet again some excellent and thought provoking comments on here. (Especially Frosty, Brent, BBD)
I agree that some caution is needed when considering how much may be gained from shale gas. But there is also coal bed methane extraction and underground gasification technology, both of which can produce useful inputs although both have very significant problems. We still have a lot of coal although the UK industry is struggling to survive and the present L'Huhne'atic Government policy (continuing and exacerbating Milipede's cretinous legacy) will doubtless soon finish it off. It would be interesting to note how much faith Frosty / Brent / BBD / others have in Carbon Capture & Sequestration!?!
But we need to get real. You may have doubts about shale gas. There may be problems about longetivity, the economics and about aquifers (although the latter has every hallmark of the usual Greenie bullshit shroudwaving). But we need to have something to keep us going between now and when (eventually)Thorium or nuclear fusion or whatever comes on stream.
Let's get back to the very basics.
Gas (including shale gas / underground gassification etc. maybe?) works. We all know it works.
Wind is useless. Unless someone can develop an affordable and efficient way of storing energy BigWind is a complete nonsense and, even if such storage was available on a large enough scale, Wind just doesn't have enough energy density to make it worth consideration for anything other than pumping some water. As to pumping hundreds of Billions into BigWind? Hello???)
Some predictable energy (at great cost) can certainly be obtained from Tidal, though we have to tell the Environmentalists (not least the EU) to go screw themselves.
Wave is a more expensive version of Wind,
Solar farms in the Sahara just aren't going to help Northern Europe. End of story. Solar in the UK? You're kidding me.
Biomass? Get real.
That leaves Nuclear. Yes there may be concerns about all sorts of issues but all are resolvable and most of them come down to yet more Greenie shroudwaving. Safety? Just compare the safety record of Nuclear with the Coal Industry (not to mention deep sea fishing).
And between now and more Nuclear coming on line it will have to be coal / gas / oil. We know they work. And we know that BigWind is just a scam.
Meanwhile, just a couple of dozen miles from where I live, there is what used to be one of the most productive coal mines in the world. Now closed. There are schemes being considered for Biomass generation (a stonking 2MW. Wow, and again Wow. Another 1999 of those suckers and we can close Drax down. If they work, of course.) There are also plans to buy up a bunch of ex MOD diesel generators andd thrash 'em every time the wind stops blowing. Under the present UK energy set up, I can believe in that - should be a money spinner. Will it keep YOUR Grannie from dying of hypothermia? Don't hold your breath.
My point (OK, a bit rambling, I know) is that this is where we are. Will BuffHuhne and DECC keep the lights on?
Really?
Like what DaveB said early in the thread.
Two weeks ago, I bought two bottles of Chivas Regal for $70 AU (approx $70 US). How much would that have set me back in Sweden?
The issue with Swedish energy prices, if there is an issue at all, has to do with their cherished social system, and the high taxation necessary to maintain it. It has little to do with state ownership of energy production. Denmark seems to find Swedish electricity prices affordable for its own citizens.
As for the nuclear energy vs coal ( or rather, radioactive waste vs CO2 emission), as far as I am concerned this is a no-brainer. No living organism is happy to live with high radiation, whereas plant life, on which animal life depends, thrives as CO2 rises. And while CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 1 to 1000 years, radioactive waste doesn't become harmless for up to a million years. Which one has a more natural cycle?
The CAGW scare has demonised CO2. Many people, including many climate skeptics, have come to consider CO2 reduction as an intrinsic moral good. For the green world, the doubling of the CO2 and the 1 degree Celsius warmth (without feedbacks) is a gift from the gods. But plants can't vote and if they want more food, they should eat cakes, I guess.
One of the biggest moral corruptions caused by the dodgy climate science occured to the Green political movement. It has turned the plant and animal loving naturalists into little Dr Strangloves. Talk about metamorphosis.
We're just doing it wrong!
What's needed are plug and pray.. I mean play 'renewable grids'. So 1km^2 modules containing-
6x6 grid of E-126 style windmills
0.5km^2 of solar panels, Andasol style for 50MW (ymmv depending on insolation)
and each Enercon tower containing a 2,500m^3 water tank for pumped storage with a PE of around 700KW per tank, or roughly 10% of each Enercon's output.
So up to 325MW per km^2 grid!
When there's no wind, the wind grid can be alternated between suck & blow, so some windmills spin to provide power for others. The blades keep turning and the visitor centre staff are happy. If it's sunny, the solar panels can provide the power to spin the blades, if it's dark, the pumped storage power! So a fully intergrated, combined power and storage solution in a simple modular design. On a perfect day, it'll provide enough energy to power thousands of homes*
(cables not included, please contact for quotes)
"Like what DaveB said early in the thread.
Two weeks ago, I bought two bottles of Chivas Regal for $70 AU (approx $70 US). How much would that have set me back in Sweden?"
You seem to have drunk them already.
Monobot said "gas household customers". Production of AGA stoves stopped in 1957.
(Although produced on license elsewhere)