Bishop Hill Green costs you more
Dec 28, 2011 Energy: costs Energy: gas The Guardian is highlighting DECC's energy costs calculator, a system developed by its chief scientific adviser, Prof David Mackay. The outlook, it appears is bleak.
Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation's entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today's ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.
The calculator itself is here. I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly, but it looks to me as if you have to have carbon capture and storage if you want to have gas-fired energy generation. If that's correct then I think it's fair to say that the calculator is a waste of time.
Bishop Hill
The No Hot Air site, which I believe is much better informed on these matters than I, has more on MacKay's handling of the shale gas question.
(H/T J Heath in the comments)
Reader Comments (249)
The right question! Its because they do not think Excel is a programming language, they don't know what programming is, and so they cannot see they are writing programs in the worst ever language invented. Its almost impossible to avoid GOTOs in Excel. Then you have this crazed mixture of code and data, all the code scattered all over the place. Try to track down the programme flow in an Excel workbook? Drive you nuts. Try to use arrays in Excel, or what passes for arrays? Drive you nuts.
So, what to use instead? Python probably for this purpose. Ah you will say, but then we would have to learn it, and we already know Excel.
No, you don't. You think you know Excel, but when it comes to writing programs in it, you know it almost as little as you know Python. You just have the illusion of competence in it. If you are doing anything serious you'll have to use Visual Basic, which is as steep a curve as Python, but what you will then be doing is making a mess of Visual Basic by attaching an Excel front end to it.
Or, you could use a high level scripting language. There is quite a nice successor to Hypercard called LiveCode. Or you could use Visual Basic on its own. RealBasic is also quite a nice package, though with a fairly steep learning curve.
Python would be my choice. And no, I am too busy making a living to rewrite it.
[snip- DNFTT]
All the data needed to disprove current IPCC IR physics is available and being assembled as real scientists wake up to what has been happening. The clincher is the cooling of the N. Atlantic since 2004: that is a real shocker for the present theories.
I'll lay a bet with you: by the end of 2012 the only people who'll be arguing that 'back radiation' is real will be those on trial for fraud.
Perhaps you will propose to make Loch Ness a pump storage facility. I am sure Nessie may have something to say about that, but she's just a grouchy old plesiosaur --- oops I forgot, she's also an endangered species, isn't she?.
Don Pablo,
Perhaps you should make an attempt to gain at least a basic understanding of a subject before making 'clever' remarks. There are in fact two pumped hydro schemes in existence that use Loch Ness as a base reservoir, the new scheme at Glendoe and of course the long-established one at Foyers, which was Scotland's first pumped storage scheme.
If some of you were just slightly less convinced of your overwhelming moral and intellectual superiority the real world might be more prepared to talk to you.
simpleseekeraftertruth: rethink your science using the assumption that there may be no direct thermalisation of absorbed IR!
I'm not stating this as certain but there is no proof it occurs except in special cases where you get IR band broadening - collision frequency is high enough.
michel
We would never use excel for real work because it was unverifiable. Everything hidden away, unconfigured and not controllable. There was one occasion when we received a large calculation done in excel. Somebody spent several days converting it into a real programmable language and having it verified and validated so that we could use the method. Our QA procedures (ISO-9001) specifically forebade use of spreadsheets for engineering calculations.
mydogsgotnonose
It is not my science but a general description of GHG theory before the era of thermageddon. I am entirely open to the idea that attempts to measure IR absorption of CO2 were not free of adiabatic effects (for example) and look forward to any other enlightenment on the subject but with emphasis on diurnal (real world) scenarios.
Whoaf! Check out Nikolov and Zeller @ WattsUp.
===============
Scots Renewables
The only renewable currently under development that can provide real 24/7 baseload capacity is tidal - but it has a long way to go before it is producing significant amounts of power.
Ever heard of slack water? Have a look at the Falls of Lora at slack water and you'll see the problem.
kim
That's http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
kim: these jerks have independently invented lapse rate heating! The serial incompetence continues. The real GHG warming of the Earth is ~9K with 24 K from lapse rate.
They also believe in 'back radiation' when it's simply a measure of temperature and atmospheric emissivity, so can do no thermodynamic work.
There is a good bit to this paper in that it shows the IPCC climate models are bunkum.
kim
Beat me to it. This looks to be highly relevant to what's being discussed here at the moment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#more-53850
"I do not see the fact that standalone wind and solar cannot provide base load is a reason for condemning them out of hand."
Has anyone seriously looked at off grid uses for something like wind power. ie something like fertilizer generation from electrolysed water. Without actually looking at the cost/efficiency I'd guess a traditional natural gas produced source is much cheaper.
What is the argument against the use of coal without carbon capture/storage?
Coal is in abundant supply and good for at least the next 1000 years.
According to the latest explanation from the warmists as to why global average temperatures have not risen these past 12 or so years is the deployment by China of conventional coal powered generators. That being the case then the West should slso deply these since this will then help sustain the hiatus to the warming.
Problem solved. No warming and cheap energy!!
richard verney: the Hansen claims about extra aerosol cooling [and extra heat transmission to the ocean deeps] are the last desperate thrashings of a good scientist who is refusing to accept the failure of his life's work is down to incorrect physics. As an expert on Mie scattering he should never have allowed NASA to claim fake 'surface reflection' physics in 2004.
Net AIE is probably slightly positive now but was much higher in ice ages and explains present Arctic warming.
They also believe in 'back radiation' when it's simply a measure of temperature and atmospheric emissivity, so can do no thermodynamic work.
Dec 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM | mydogsgotnonose
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Of course it can do no therodynamic work at or near to the Earth's surface and that is why no one is seeking to tap this 'energy' source as the cure to the world's energy needs.
If the warmists were correct there would be a reliable energy source of about 325 w per square metre available 24/7 and for 365 days of the year. If this 'energy' source truly existed, countries in northern climes such as UK, Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, much of Russia, much of North America, Canada etc would find this energy source a god send and a far better prosect to either Solar or wind power. No one is seeking to tap into because it does not exist. It is nothing more than a signal without the ability to do useful work. A phantom.
Huhne Chris, Hendry Charles et al have appointed an Expert Chair of the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage (OCCS), within the Department of Energy and Climate Change who said:.
“I am pleased to be taking up this post and working alongside the OCCS team. I am very much looking forward to helping secure the development and delivery of CCS in the UK and elsewhere.”
Thank goodness for that. /sarc.
Scots Rnewables
Loch Ness is one of the largest bodies of controlled water in Europe.Indeed, in the world. What proportion of UK baseload energy do Glendoe and Foyers contribute?
Dec 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM | mydogsgotnonose
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have enjoyed reading your comments on this thread.
I agree with your comment about Hansen, however, the implications of the Hansen claim is fundamental and opens the case for the use of coal.
Logic would now suggest that the position is that when burning coal and emitting C02 as a by product is not a problem either because CO2 in itself is not a problem, alternatively C02 together with the aerosol emissions that go alongside and are inherent in the process when taken togather are not a problem.
It does not matter which one of these explanations is correct. Either way, the use of coal powered generation as being deployed by China is not a problem and thus would not be a problem if the West were to similarly use this form of energy generation.
The politicians should take note of the implication of the Hansen claim
Kim
Wow indeed. I asked at 10:23 "I am entirely open to the idea that attempts to measure IR absorption of CO2 were not free of adiabatic effects (for example) and look forward to any other enlightenment on the subject but with emphasis on diurnal (real world) scenarios."
And you came up with the answer at 10:26. Many thanks for the link, it has made my day!
{Snip- DNFTT]
I cannot believe that anyone believes that we can take this carbon reduction route.
The whole thing reads like a reductio ad absurdum.
Time for a single issue political party methinks.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/
Those having the discussion on co2 Would do well to look at the above article just posted on WUWT I fear the AGW guys are losing the argument fast.
[snip- DNFTT]
The consensus (and I hate the use of this) now suggests that there will be no discernable signal of catstrophic climate change/events during the next 20 or so years. The IPCC draft report concedes the likelihood of this.
Many consider that there will actually be cooling over the next 20 years due to a change in ocean phases and/or abetted by a quiet sun.
The costs of green energy policies are only just beginning to be felt by the consumer. In the past the consumer had not realised the financial implications of the drive towards green energy. These costs are coming at a time when the economy is in crisis and most consumers are having to cut back because wage increases are not keeping up with the costs of living or worse still they are out of job.
Energy proces are set to escalate and to place growing numbers in fuel poverty. The combination of these two events over the next decade (escalating energy costs and no discernable signal of catastrophic change/events) will lead to ever increasing numbers of people questioning why they are being forced to pay ever increasing and unaffordable amounts for their energy and will lead ever increasing numbers to become sceptics. This flight will be quicker if the ever increasing dependency in wind power leads to rolling brown outs.
In fact if there are such brown outs and/or if fuel poverty leads to an increase in deaths (especially of the elderly) the MSM will be forced to report on those stories. In that scenario, the energy policy will come under increasing public scrutiny again leading to a rise in the number of sceptics.
Those of you debating with Scots Renewables in his earnestly reasonable mode might be interested to note his description of you on his own blog today as - .....rabid attack dogs who flock to the likes of Bishop Hill
http://www.scotsrenewables.com/blog/climatechange/denial/scottish-climate-deniers-neil-craig/
SR's blog gives the impression of a very professionally produced effort with a lot of links to companies, resources and organisations in the renewable energy field.
Maybe, in a spirit of open and transparent debate, SR might to take a leaf out our good Bish's book and tell us "rabid attack dogs" who he represents, who funds the SR blog and whether anyone involved has a personal financial interest in renewable energy.
Peter Whale: the reference you quote is very wrong in parts. What they have done is to re-invent lapse rate heating but they have made the mistake of believing in 'back radiation' as a heat source when it is in reality exactly offset by energy from the opposite direction.
.....One thing I am not prepared to discuss with the sceptic lobby is the flat cost of renewables, as you are not prepared to factor in the costs associated with the failure to decarbonise our economy. If you do not believe that there is a problem then there is no way that we can discuss cost in any meaningful way - and I am sure you are rational enough to be able to see my POV on this......
Dec 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM | Scots Renewables
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I can understand your POV in that.
That said would you accept that IF in the end it is established that climate sensitivity to CO2 is small (say 1.2 decC or less per doubling of CO2) such that there is and was no need to decarbonise the economy, then the present drive (based on today's present technology and its limitations) to (i) wind; and/or (ii) solar, is misconceived and/or a financially unsound policy.
Foxgoose,
Don't you start . . . it was the lunatic attack by Neil Craig - who refused to believe my assertions about funding - that prompted that post in the first place.
I represent myself, SR is not funded by anyone, no-one else is involved (unless you count the occasional guest blogger) and I do not have any personal financial interest in renewable energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-HKFHXGgrY&feature=related
For those of you studying sea levels remember ice floats as much as it expands so levels stay the same
For those of you wanting a good laugh google search "how to make an ice dildo from a condom and a cardboard tube from a toilet paper roll"
Classic
mydogsgotnonose
"...mistake of believing in 'back radiation' as a heat source when it is in reality exactly offset by energy from the opposite direction."
At night? I think we need more time to digest Nikolov & Zeller before dismissing them out-of-hand. Also, Harry Dale Huffman has been on the same track for a while. At the moment I consider Nikolov & Zeller as The Big Thing for 2012 although accepting I may be suffering from confirmation bias. They have published their workings so let's wait and see what transpires.
richard verney: you can explain all the effects currently attributed to GHG-GW/AGW by another process.
N. Atlantic OHC: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure-101.png
It's falling and that means GHG warming must be significantly lower than natural cooling. That comprises two factors; solar [increased cloud area] and the Arctic freezing in its 50-70 year oscillation. The latter means increasing cloud albedo in the North.
I'm now laying bets that net CO2-AGW is near zero either because of natural drop of water vapour as the atmosphere maintains constant IR optical depth or self-absorption near IR band saturation is reducing emissivity/absorptivity of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface, increasing it in the opposite direction.
The IR physics bit is very poor because Ramanathan like Fourier and all the others assumed 100% thermalisation and did not realise that the emissivity is a measure of the impedance to IR transmission. So the optical depth of the atmosphere is not necessarily constant as claimed by Miskolczi.
Trouble is we get deadbeats like ZDB continuing to deceive people into believing the science is settled!
simpleseekeraftertruth: do you see that they have independently derived lapse rate heating?
Richard,
Yes, I would agree 100% with that statement. I believe however that climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher than that and that we are currently running an uncontrolled experiment on our atmosphere (the only one we have) that has the potential to get seriously out of control.
I also believe that the fossil fuel industry is highly subsidised because it is allowed to void its waste products into the planetary commons at no cost to itself.
This variance in our beliefs means that discussion of renewable technologies in raw free market economic terms is inevitably going to be unproductive.
Scots Renewables: please direct me to any unambiguous experimental evidence of any CO2-GW/AGW.
[To be fair, modeller Kiehl here GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007 pointed out that he was certain that given time, the CO2-AGW signal would emerge from 'aerosol noise'. But as that aerosol physics is wrong, that is unlikely, ever!]
Quite seriously the IPCC science has since 1997 when it was found that CO2 rose after T, been increasingly fraudulent - fake hockey-sticks, fake physics and the claims that the present cooling is by more of the same fraudulent physics is getting a little bit too much, even for the gullible and the politicians who are looking askance at those like me who are saying it's baloney.
BTW the only way Scotland will get 100% renewables is by going back to crofting and fishing..........:o)
Mildly o/t, but mentioned near the top...
Richard Drake
"Not having time to investigate much, I would be very careful of the My2050 Schools Toolkit linked to by Don, because there's no way to interact with it and thus learn thereby."
If only that were so…
Don Keiller, your link really caught my eye and I thinks leads to a very interesting and frightening debate point - so I downloaded the pdf and whilst reading it I discovered this link within it as a teaching aid for DECC's Indoctrination come Thought Reform Session Plans and Learning Outcomes:
http://my2050.decc.gov.uk/
Oh the “horror” (patting balding crown in dark despair)…
And all with the Sim City graphical look, cars, sliders, knobs... Create your own society, with little thought bubbles that appear as you amend your future uptopia. And the music bed is the classic plinky-plonk nightmare nursery rhyme piano... Just before the blooded hand reaches up from the grave to throttle the child (holding the teddy bear)...
Apologies if I am slow off the mark, and others have already posted this one up, but I find anything like this, whose intended audience is children - under the guise of education - to have a blood-boilingly, tourettesifying effect on me. Worth a look.
Scottish Renewables: Your website sings the praises of wind and solar.
Some might get the wrong impression - that your lucrative industry is bleeding the rest of us dry, and will celebrate Professor Mackay's cheerful invitation to each cough up "about £5000 a year between now and 2050".
I admire your site's frank statement that "Huge developments such as the Argyll Array situated in remote rural locations threaten the very fabric of communities as well as their landscapes." How about adding, "... just as the monstrously wasteful renewables industry threatens to price the less well off out of the market and to drive manufacturing overseas"?
You should read a book called "The Windfarm Scam". If, having read it, your conscience still allows you to stay in the game, well good luck to you! There is something to be said for filling one's pockets at the neighbours' expense; some of us would have qualms.
Dec 29, 2011 at 12:22 PM | Scots Renewables
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Whilst I personally am sceptical for the need to decarbonise the economy, I am not per se against the use of renewables. My problem with renewables is that I consider that there has been a lack of grown up thinking.
Each country needs to consider its own electrical needs (some countries use more power in summer than in winter, some use more power during the day than at night) and to look at their own resources. The UK for example needs power at night and in particularly in winter.
It has been obvious from the outset that wind power had major shortcomings and the fact that not one single conventional power generator has been closed because of the introduction of windfarms demonstartes that such 'renewable' does not decarbonise the economy. Going back to a power source that was redundant in the 19th century was never likely to be the way forward.
Solar is presently inefficient. that said for certain countries it is even in its current technological state a viable option. Particularly, using solar for thermal production which has a low cost application and is potentially reliable and maintenance free for 20 or more years. For countries such as Spain which are sunny and are in middle latitudes it makes sense. I am presently living in Spain and this month it has been 18 to 23 degC every day, the majority of days not a cloud in the sky. However, for the country like the UK which is notoriously cloudy *even summer days are rarely cloud free) and where the incidence of the sun is weak due to the high latitude, solar is obviously not a viable option with today's efficiency returns. Economy of scale is unlikely to lead to much savings since whilst this may lead to a reduction in panel cost (althugh rare metals will restrict the price fall), the other associated equipment eg batteries, inverters, cabling etc are already being churned out in the hundreds of millions and thus these items are unlikely to fall in price with mass production. What is necessary is a technological leap to up panel efficiency to 50% (or more).
The UK is an island nation. Most major cities are not far from the sea, Tidal power would seem an obvious candidate for such a country. It is reliable, metronomic in nature and can provide base load both summer and winter. This form of renewable ought to have been the obvious first choice candidate.
In my opinion, we have wasted a lot of money on wind (which due to its obvious short commings was never a viable option particularly if one wished to decarbonise the economy). Our efforts should have primarily been directed at tidal and wave power research and development. At the same time (but with less emphasis) we should be researching and developing solar.
When and only when those technologies were in a position to make a cost viable contribution (or at any rate near to break even) should those technologies have been rolled out.
I suspect that if we had not wasted so much money on wind, we would be all but ready to being rolling out tidal or wave power generators. Obviously nuclear would have achieved the decarbonising goal as is firmly established by the experience in France. Again, if decarbonising is a real need this is something the UK should have adopted 20 years ago and we would not now be in the mess that we are in.
Unfortunately, there is going to be a heavy price to pay for the lack of grown up thinking on this issue and the failure these past 15 to 20 years to put in place an economical and sustainable energy programme. .
Wind power is the answer to everything should you happen to live on a windy Welsh hillside. As part of a 'national solution' it is the answer to nothing.
Great quote from ScotsRenewables!
We should forward it toot-sweet to Mann, Jones, Briffa et al
richard verney: there is incrasing evidence [Texas, holland] that above a critical penetration in grids without hydro, windmills increase CO2 generation for a given nominal windmill capacity. It's because the thermal plant is used inefficiently.
The windmills are not a solution to a problem. Like the Norman castles they are a symbol of EU/Marxist political dominance a bit like a combination of the windmill in 'Animal Farm' and the Easter Island Statue cult.
The dogmatic insistence by Prescott and Miliband on going the whole hog is because of [certainly the former] membership of Common Purpose, the EU hidden UK government. CP uses fake IPCC science as part of its neural linguistic programming, effectively indoctrination.
So we are not dealing with rational people.
Scots Renewables
I noticed that you referred to Loch Ness being used for the "base reservoir" which means water is taken from it. That is meaningless as you can use a river or a stream as a source of water. My point, as noted by Gixxerboy, is that you would need to have a MASSIVE storage facility to have any impact on the requirements of reserve power and that is why I choose Loch Ness as the example.
As for your comments regarding pump storage facilities, I assure you I am very familiar with them. They have been around for well over 100 years. There are several in California such as San Luis Reservoir. And there are several large plants such as Raccoon Mountain in Tennesse and Taum Sauk in Missouri. However, all those are well away from any populated areas and basically service agricultural needs both for power and water. Any attempts to build such facilities in urban areas such as near New York City led to a serious fight driven by the Greenies to stop Storm King Mountain about 30 years ago, which they did.
So for the Greenies to now say that they want pump storage seems just a little hypocritical to me.
And I was clearly thinking of what happened in the Storm King Mountain project when I choose Loch Ness. If it was seriously proposed the Greenies would rant and rave about Nessie being an endangered species and you know it.
And we are all still waiting for your explanation of what caused the increase in electric rates in the UK. I can hardly wait. I notice that you rarely respond to questions, but that is probably because you don't have the answer although you pretend that you do. Let's see you prove me wrong.
DECC on Twitter: @DECCgovuk Renewables bring £2.5bn boost to economy, bit.ly/udKziw (http://tinyurl.com/d49zwa2)
@Number10gov is retweeting.
I took a few minutes to read your spat with Craig on Scottish Sceptic.
I agree he was unacceptably rude to you - although I'm surprised that someone who chucks around comments like "Don't you start"..."Lunatic".... and "Rabid attack dogs... from Bishop Hill" is quite so sensitive.
I've also had a look at your Webcraft web design site. It appears from your "environment" page that you operate three commercial websites of your own promoting climate change and renewable energy issues and a fourth site for a publicly funded environmental organisation.
http://www.webcraft.co.uk/environment.html
It's amusing that your spat with Craig started with you casting aspersions on the funding sources of the Heartland Institute. I think a reasonable person, seeing that you run a blog promoting climate change action and renewable energy, linked to sites of your other organisations promoting similar commercial activities, would make the same assumption that you made about Heartland - that you have an obvious commercial interest.
Nothing wrong with that of course, we all have to make a living. The strange thing is that, like many in the "climate" camp, you feel perfectly happy to deny the bleedin' obvious.
I went round a windfarm on Christmas Day. The site anemometer was reading 60 mph, and only two of the 30-odd turbines were turning.
Don Pablo
Gas prices primarily
The true believers in AGW are looking less and less distinguishable from fools.
Foxgoose,
Please explain to me how I am making money from the renewable energy industry, because I sure as hell can't see it. Operating these 'commercial' websites you refer to costs me money and a not inconsiderable amount of time and I can assure you no-one pays me to do it..
The insane conspiracy theory you 'sceptics' insist on seeing everywhere makes you blind to the fact that some of us do what we do because we believe in it. I know that right wing 'libertarians' find that hard to believe, but it is true nonetheless. Try not to judge us all by your own shallow standards.
The true believers in AGW are looking less and less distinguishable from fools.
Hunter,
What an incredibly valuable contribution to the debate - I am almost convinced by the sceptic viewpoint when I read such pearls of wisdom.
HMG,
Hardly surprising. Most turbines are designed to shut down at around 55mph. Fortunately the number of hours a year when the wind is above 55mph are pretty small - and of course it pretty much never happens on a UK-wide basis.
SR
"Hardly surprising. Most turbines are designed to shut down at around 55mph. Fortunately the number of hours a year when the wind is above 55mph are pretty small - and of course it pretty much never happens on a UK-wide basis."
Perhaps that's why they catch fire or collapse when we get really strong winds.
Don Pablo,
I think I know a little more about Loch Ness and the people who live on its shores than you do, as my parents had a house in the area for many years. I have lived beside it, sailed on it, talked to and partied with the people who live there, walked its shores and know all the towns and villages surrounding it.
I repeat - as you seem incapable of listening - there are already two major pumped storage schemes based on Loch Ness. There were no serious objections. Scotland has one of the most managed hydrologies in the world - it was hydro power that brought electricity to most of the Highlands for the first time in the 1960s. Between the end of WW2 and 1975 the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board built 50 major dams and power stations, almost 200 miles of tunnel, 400 miles of road and over 20,000 miles of power line.
Scotland has a long tradition of leading the world in renewable energy, one which she intends to hold on to.