Bishop Hill Black and greenie
Mar 19, 2012 BBC Energy: grid Greens Richard Black has been chatting to some environmentalists (I kid you not) and they've told him that the government isn't as green as they said they were going to be. There is concern that there is going to be a dash for gas.
"There are growing pressures to create a UK energy system very heavily dominated by gas," Michael Grubb, chair of energy and environment policy at Cambridge University, told BBC News.
"There's a risk that the government is trying to give the gas industry assurances that could be misleading because they are not compatible with all we know about climate change."
Michael Grubb? Who he?
Tom Wigley, in Climategate email #2547 helpfully provides some background:
I know that [economists] Rich Richels and Jae Edmonds have a very low opinion of him (as do I). He has no formal background in economics, even though he claims to do credible economic analyses. Basically, he is a "greenie"; and he bends his "science" to suit his ideological agenda.
Just the man for a BBC interview then.
Reader Comments (50)
"a dash for gas"
Better than a dash for windmills.
Grubb comes up quite a few times in the climategate emails. I liked this one (5173, Wigley)
You tactfully missed out the juicier bit of 2547, which people can find for themselves.
0040 is also not very complimentary to Grubb.
Great name for the chap.
This Richard Black person, why does the BBC employ him?
Because he tells the faithful what they want to hear.
Holdonholdonholdon.
So Cambridge University has a Chair of Energy and Environment Policy? Justice4Rinka should get on to the case immediately. It seems that the UEA "thickness" disease has spread to the home of the intellectually gifted.
Black writes:
So, to take the well-worn Greenie word, 'context', what the devil does 202Mt of CO2 mean, in the great scheme of things, Mr Black? May I suggest, SFA?
He then goes on to say:
So, in other words, Black would revel in nothing less than the destruction of this country and its power infrastructure. Does anyone share with me the feeling that Black is no better than a fifth columnist?
Black should be sacked!
"The government set the ceiling for emissions from gas-fired power stations until 2045 at 450 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour"
They can regulate the laws of physics now..?
Why is it that I find everything about environmentalism so...........Grubby? Grubby fingers in even grubbier pies me thinks! As said, Black & Grubby, (tends to be what happens when the two intermingle, I dare say there will be a couple of experts called Muck & Brass before too long!) are perfect for their resepective employers, they say what they want to hear as is requisit for such employment! Watch those lovely eco words in their experts' Group-Speak puter models, "sophisticated", "representation", "simualtion", "novel"!
Snotrocket said:
I don't think that is Black's view. *If you take the Government at their word* they want a virtually decarbonised electricity network by 2030. At the moment it is unfeasible without causing the problems you highlight. But... The Government's plans are based on CCS being effective and being affordable, more nuclear, more wind and other renewables.
What goes unsaid by both sides is that the plan is pie in the sky stuff. CCS has the similar potential dangers as fracking but we hear virtually no concerns about putting large amounts of gas into the ground and lots of hyped concern about taking a different gas out. It is also costly. Wind power is unreliable and the way it is integrated into the network will make emissions worse not better.
I had a brief look at the CCC report Black links to in his article. In the key findings document it reports that winter months of 2010 were 2 degrees colder. This is weather not climate. Weather is variable. While everyone in authority is wetting themselves about computed averages of averages of averages and models trying to predict future values for those averages the world outside continues to be significantly variable. Shaping policies to meet a hypothetical future of climate is damaging the ability of our infrastructure to accommodate simple weather.
Every article that Richard Black writes gets filleted in comments (when comments are allowed).
Whilst seemingly unimportant he has and has had a long reach....
Professor Michael Grubb http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/SelectAct.htm
Lead Author for IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Mitigation Working Group, Chapter on cross-sectoral mitigation.
Member of writing team for Policymakers Summary and Technical Summary of the Third Assessment Report, Mitigation (WG-III) (2000-2001)
Convening lead author for chapter of IPCC Special Report on Technology Transfer (1997-99)
Lead author for IPCC Technical Paper on Atmospheric Stabilization (1996-7)
Lead Author for IPCC Second Assessment Report, Working Group III (1994-95: 3 chapters, leading input on Equity chapter)
Michael Grubb was formerly Chief Economist at the UK Carbon Trust and is Chairman of the international research network Climate Strategies. http://www.climatestrategies.org/. He was appointed to UK Climate Change Committee in 2008.
Climate Strategies is a not for profit, limited by guarantee, membership company registered in the UK, Companies House, Number 05796323. Whilst he was Chief Economist, the Carbon Trust provided a core funding grant in March 2008 to enable the establishment of a secretariat function for Climate Strategies, hosted at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK.
"Climate Strategies is grateful for funding from the Cambridge Centre for Energy Studies and core supporters include the governments of UK (DEFRA, BERR, DFID), Sweden (Swedish Energy Agency) France (ADEME with inputs from French Ministry of Finance), The Carbon Trust, and Grant Thornton."
He is also senior research associate at Cambridge University and holds a visiting professorship at Imperial College. Previously he was Head of the Energy and Environmental Programme at Royal Institute of International Affairs, before joining Imperial College as Professor of Climate Change and Energy Policy.
Is it not the case that even the most efficient CCGT plants produce more CO2 than 450g/kWh?
What seems to be missing from the debate is the fact that wind, on which the DECC seems to depend, is erratic going to nil from a reasonable output in minutes, with an average efficiency in the UK of 27% of rated output. This means that wind has to have a ' back-up' of a fossil fuel plant (say gas) and that since this plant is switched on and off to meet the fluctuation of the wind, the gas plant works 73% of the time and in such an INEFFICIENT manner that the 'back-up' plant produces nearly as much CO2 as a CCGT plant working full time. So with wind, the DECC's favourite source, there will be no reduction in CO2.
Germany and Denmark have not managed to reduce CO2 despite big Wind Capacity.
Slightly off topic, but of some relevance to the mix of future energy supply, at long last a national newspaper has picked up on the future of wind. For some time now, I have been suggesting that if one wishes to see what the future has install for us look no further than the decaying windmills in California and Hawaii.
When the subsidies run out and when the full costs (which have been grossly underestimated) of maintenance start rolling in, these useless mincers will be abandoned and left to decay since it will bankrupt the energy companies to dismantle them and dispose of them in a 'green' manner. Indeed, in order to keep the lights on, the demands on the energy companies at that time will be to invest in new conventional power generating plants (probably gas) and nuclear so they will have no spare cash and the government will be unable to force the energy giants to attend to the windmill issue whilst there is an overwhelming need for investment in new energy generation plants.
See the Daily Mail article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html
The article also picks up on the bird mincing tendency of these windmills.
I wonder whether Alex Salmond really knows what he is letting himself in for and what effect this may have on tourism in the future.
Picturesque countryside is not simply important to the tourism industry. It is interesting to note that according to a survey we value greatly our green and pleasant countryside. For how much longer will we be able to enjoy this when it is littered with windfarms? See:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116930/Hovis-survey-Countryside-voted-thing-makes-proud-British.html
"...with all we know about climate change."
'Nuff said.
Meanwhile,
Is there reason for hope?
I don't care how upset Black and the Greens are. The important thing is that the present government seems to have got the message that the lights will go out if we dont have real generating capacity coming on stream and of course by the time we get to the 2030's mother nature will have passed judgement on man's ability to understand and control the weather. It would be quite uplifting to think that there are one or two in the Tory party who subliminally believe that climate change is a crock.
bish,
the same thing is happening in Australia:
19 March: ABC: Matthew Wright: Two-faced climate policy
It’s ironic that Australia is moving toward a ‘cap’ on carbon emissions because while we’ve got this paper target for a five per cent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2020 we’ve also got the foot on the accelerator and running in overdrive expanding the coal and gas mining at an unprecedented rate.
Australia is on target to increase CO2 emissions originating from our shores by over 400 per cent. It’s a simple trick of accounting: claim a five per cent reduction by ignoring our fossil fuels that are burnt off shore.
This approach of saying one thing while doing another isn’t new to politics, but normally doesn’t keep currency with the population for so long. Trumpeting supposed carbon action while quadrupling our carbon emissions is a complete farce and has been going on for half a decade.
Amongst a population of 20 million, Australia has a very high level of climate denialism when compared to the political will and actions of 300 million people in Europe…
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/03/19/3455327.htm
(not the broadcaster above) ABC Carbon: Profile: Matthew Wright
As chief executive of the Beyond Zero Emissions group, Matthew Wright claims the multi-billion dollar Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan was more realistic than Australia’s continued dependence on foreign oil supplies and fluctuating fuel prices. ”If you’re going to secure Australia’s energy future, then you’re going to do that with risk-free renewable energy that has no fuel costs.”…
He has been working with government and industry to educate and enable the execution of renewable energy, water saving and energy efficiency. He is the lead campaigner with the climate advocacy and awareness group, Beyond Zero Emissions & hosts the Beyond Zero radio show biweekly where he interviews leading world experts on climate science and solutions…
Prior to that he was in Technical Sales in Mission Critical server architecture at Reuters, servicing amongst others the Finance Sector…
Beyond Zero Emissions is an Australian-based, not-for-profit climate change campaign centre founded by Matthew Wright and Adrian Whitehead…
http://abccarbon.com/profile-matthew-wright/
Wright and the others connected with the above are involved in a multiplicity of not-for-profit, not-for-taxes groups, so it's anyone's guess where govt would get their revenues from if these lunatics every get their way.
Just checking the UK Electricity Grid on http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ one can see that the past week wind energy contribution was on average less than 25% of the installed capacity and for some long days very close to zero. That means that IF the UK would be so silly to use windmills for, say, 30% of the total demand, first of all at least 12 times as many windmills would have to be installed. Because the enormous variations in power output can no longer be assimilated by the grid, 90% OCGT (gas) backup must be installed to cope with the wind variations. Because the ramping up and down of the OCGT results in even less efficiency than they already have compared to CCGT, the net CO2 output of the wind + OCGT power system would be higher than the same capacity CCGT running just following the demand. Currently the average 2.6% contribution of wind in the UK (c.f. IEA wind Annual 2010 report) can easily be assimilated by the grid, with all its variations. But that is no longer possible when the variations increase by an order of magnitude. Wind is really useless for power generation, it is just a hobby.
Richard went quiet for a couple of weeks, but he seems to be in full swing now.
Has Cambridge now fallen so low? Sorely tempting though it is to make play with the bloke's name, Andrew however will not permit so.
This, is also tempting ridicule, on a oh so grand title and artful manoeuvre methinks; 'Chair of Energy and Environment Policy'.
It really is incorrectly titled...[er let me have a go]; Chair of environmental advocacy and green energy boondoggle justification.
I think you're all being a bit mean to Black, reserve your attacks for when he's looser than this article. If you just read the story there are a lot of facts, a lot of good journalism, he specifies that his interlocutors are 'environmentally-minded' which I took as useful code for a pinch of salt, Grubb may or may not be a twat but he has a relevant chair at Cambridge, and it's a relevant story given Davey's 17/3 press release on gas.
Specifically to Black's credit he says that CCS doesn't exist, which I'm always pleased to read given the magical thinkers who want to believe it does.
Very important that not everything is attacked! Think Climate Progress and shudder.
Athelstan, that's a bit of a ChEEP shot.
I was just saying "Oh, Cambridge!" to myself, when the image of Henry Crabbe* saying it to his lovely assistant sprang to mind, and I cheered up...
*the policeman/restaurateur.
Bringing us back to reality, why is it so ***king cold? This from Ole Humlum, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway H/T Jennifer Marohasy
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Clim...ruary_2012.pdf
CAGW is a culting corrupt cult and with that, I shall return to reading about the glorious restoration of the Monty. http://www.montgomerycanal.me.uk/montgomerycanal.html
Regards,
Perry
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_February_2012.pdf
Is Richard Black impressed with Michael Grubb?
email 5173
Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. Crispin is not only ignorant
(in the economics area) but also a *real* snake in the grass. What he
will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it, not on the
basis of knowledge-based and fair judgement. At least Woods and Mason
will be more balanced -- but their knowledge in these areas is also
superficial. The trouble is that all three *think* they know more than
they do. I think you are up against it. However, good luck.
Cheers,
Tom
I'm slightly baffled by this Grubb character's credentials and role.
The CU webpage about him is here: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/
and he simply appears to have the usual green activist CV. I can't see where in there he has any qualifications that would equip him to pontificate about the sky, but equally I can't find any evidence that there's any energy and environment committee of which he might be chairfascist.
I wonder if he's chairman of a committee in the same way that Iqbal Sacranie was chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain? I.e. self appointed, unelected and in possession of a spurious self-awarded title?
"What he will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it"
That's the core problem, IMHO. How many alarmists really believe their own hype?
"self appointed, unelected and in possession of a spurious self-awarded title"
Worth trying - at least you don't have to attend any boring meetings!
Richard Black thinks that 40% offshore wind is unlikely because of increasing costs, but he is obviously not aware that apart from costs offshore wind has the same problems as onshore wind. He says that 40% nuclear is unlikely because of Fukushima, “ …so 50% for gas has its logic. The problem is, it busts climate targets.”
Is that really a problem? How does Richard think that the future electricity demand can be met? Is that not a much greater problem? Those UK climate targets were set a long time ago when there was a big scare going on. Even if they were met and global warming would develop according to the scare predictions, meeting the UK targets would have an insignificant influence on climate. Global warming would be postponed by no more than ten days for a price of tens of billions of pounds.
It is strange that Richard appears to be using logic but does not follow through to a logical conclusion.
Cumbrian Lad, no a little birdie told me to;)
Grubb said: ""There are growing pressures to create a UK energy system very heavily dominated by gas" [...]
If you can excuse the pun - why shouldn't there be 'pressure' for greater more construction and utilisation of Gas fired generating plant? For heavens sake, Britain is sitting on [reckoned to be massive but as yet unquantified and unsurveyed] a reservoir of shale gas - therefore would it not seem a tad odd - not to be pursuing a dash for gas?!
Albert, it's a problem for the government because of CCAct, and in a political sense because they like to be seen as green. It's not a problem for Richard Black, the article's about the problem the gvt is facing given previous targets, Davey's gas press release, and 'the greenest gvt ever' nonsense. As you say, he (accurately) points out that nuclear progress is minimal, the puffs gone out of wind, certainly any dream of 40%, and the government has swung back to gas to keep the lights on, and the CCS dream is just that too, so we'll bust all targets.
It's a good piece if you'll all allow yourselves to get over the writer for a moment! It's not his job particularly to opine on what the gvt should be doing, and in this piece he doesn't.
" they are not compatible with all we know about climate change."
Fag back written a packet the of on
Place the above in the correct order to determine exactly what Michael Grubb knows about climate change?
"Richard went quiet for a couple of weeks, but he seems to be in full swing now.
Mar 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM | blackswhitewash.com"
He went quiet for a while after foolishly allowing comments on his posts, and it didn't go well for him. Now he's back in the business of editorialising, which is a peculiar way for a public servant to behave.
Richard Black says
'The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) produces "carbon budgets", setting out what the government should aim to achieve at various stages en route to the eventual aim, enshrined in legislation, of cutting emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.'
The Climate Change Act says (part 1 section 2 para 1)
'Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year.
(1)The Secretary of State may by order— .
(a)amend the percentage specified in section 1(1)*; .
(b)amend section 1 to provide for a different year to be the baseline year.'
*section 1.1 It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.
Roddy,
politicians always think that everything is doable, even when it is physically impossible. Years ago I had an issue with the German government passing a law on EMC for FM receivers that turned out to contradict physics. It was not too difficult to prove this with some advanced mathematics and I had to go to Darmstadt to discuss this with the FTZ. They proposed that the measurement method should be changed so that the law would not have to be retracted…
It always seemed very silly to me not to do the right thing and retract the law. Now the UK government is in a physics bind that makes it impossible to meet climate targets – that are rather silly in themselves – and at the same time ensure electrical energy security. Why should it be a problem to reconsider this CC Act in view of new insights? That would surely not make them look stupid, like trying to meet the targets would.
Sorry, am up to my neck in work and haven't had a chance to check, but I saw somewhere that the EU has produced a report, don't know when, calling for a cessation of franking due to the deleterious effects on human health. That would put a spanner in the works. I picked this up from a greenie mate on Facebook - the greenies are plugging it like crazy. I suppose it is a threat to their green dreams. Might be worth digging it up if there is such a report. Might be greenie scaremongering. Might have been written for the EU bu greenies. Surely not, they don't do that sort of thing do they?
Back to the grindstone. Deadline looming.
I noticed that Prof Grubb's stellar status in the Climate Change firmament seems to have started with a PhD at the Cavendish Lab.
The Cavendish?? Some mistake surely - I spent most of my working life in the semiconductor industry where places like the Cavendish were regarded as the sacred temples of the gods of the purest of pure physics.
Stern jawed blokes with pipes between their teeth who could split a few atoms before breakfast without even flinching and uncoil a DNA helix without breaking a sweat.
Guys who could get their names on fundamental particles before they'd even been discovered and work out which bit of the box Schrodinger's bloody cat would pop up in next with nothing more than a stub of pencil and a fag packet.
Surely.....surely.....the Cavendish couldn't have been slimed with the green goo as well.
So I did a bit of Googling and found this:-
www.phy.cam.ac.uk/development/Development_Portfolio_Final.pdf
Read it all and weep.
Professor David MacKay, chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has undertaken a superb study of the Physics of Sustainability and published one of the most significant studies in his popular book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. This is a model of how physics can address many of the key underlying issues of sustainability, such as the fundamental limitations of sources of energy such as wind-power, tidal power, and nuclear energy. He shows how the issues of sustainability can be addressed by simple physics that can be understood by the lay-person. The endowment of a Professorship in this area is very timely since a large initiative in the Physics of Sustainability, led by the Cavendish Laboratory, has just been announced. This post will complement that initiative and reinforce the University’s commitment to substantial and practical contributions to sustainability.
It's like learning that the Church of England has gone into partnership with Peter Stringfellow for a new chain of lap dancing clubs.
I used to think that, one day soon real scientists from proper research institutions would come thundering over the horizon like the US Cavalry and put the "climatology" charlatans from the University of Easy Access etc to flight.
Clearly, there aren't any proper scientists left here.
Maybe the Chinese will sort it out for us.
"50% for gas has its logic"
He does know that 50% is currently generated by coal, I suppose?
Black writes:
This may be true, but coal dust also has deleterious health effects.
Presumably these are minor compared with "climate change", in Black's world.
@Foxgoose - well there is Professor Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge who seemed to be able recognize a crock (sorry CRU) when presented with one. Even Prince Philip has somehow or other managed to realize that windmills are absurd: Wind farms are useless, says Duke of Edinburgh.
Mar 19, 2012 at 9:53 PM | Foxgoose
Hate to contradict you but I'd say it's more like learning that the C of E has endorsed the idea of cargo cultism and is holding wooden airplane construction awareness meetings at the General Synod.
It's so "off mission" to my mind - it exhausts my vocabulary to even try and directly and constructively say why little old me thinks it brings an august and revered institution into disrepute. The only thing I can imagine is that Cavendish have a PR department... or that funding is now so dongled that to not pay lip service is unacceptable.
"So to stay within budget, only 10% of UK electricity can come from gas, or the pathway leading through "virtually decarbonised" electricity by 2030 has to be abandoned."
A hole-in-1, Mr Black.
Perhaps I'm being unfair, but it's not very often I feel inclined to praise politicians. However I'm beginning to suspect that they have heard a few wise words in their ears recently and are testing the exits. The pinch of the vice for environmentalists is at last appearing on their horizons [which never were particularly broad]: More gas, or more nuclear [gleefully supplied by France].
If the environmental movement had been a bit more into "formal qualifications" of the science, engineering, or economics variety, then it wouldn't come as such an unpleasant surprise.
HADCRUT data adjustments touted as evidence of continued warming seem to be the last words of scoundrels with hands in the scientific cookie jar. Past data for Arctic sites have been adjusted downwards: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/crus-new-hadcrut4-hiding-the-decline-yet-again-2/
The hundredths of a degree lauded as 'ptoof' of potentially disastrous global warming are artificial. What is worse is that if you look carefully at the Ground Zero of climate fraud, the modellers at Boulder, the evidence of fraud is now very apparent.
The IPCC takes the data and bolts on two bits of totally false science. These are (1) that the earth emits IR at the black body level in a vacuum and (2) recycles imaginary 'back radiation'. Including energy absorbed on the way down, this makes 434 W/m^2 [2009 data] to heat the atmosphere.
Do the calculation properly by making convection plus radiation equal to energy arriving and 'back radiation' is ignored because it can do no thermodynamic work, and it's 101 W/m^2. The ratio, ~4.2 is the phoney amplification. They have also put in 0.9 W/m^ kept by an unknown process in the oceans. They know their main scam has been rumbled and the World will cool for at least 30 years, but by posing a new unknown unknown hope to keep funding coming in.
This in my view has been the biggest scientific fraud in History.
mydog, it may be a typo, but ptoof for a suspicious proof has a lot to recommend it.
This is the story of how GISS has fiddled Arctic temperatures, and HADCRUT is a cousin: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html
Dash for Gas
I know a good way for Britain to cut its Carbon footprint sack 50 thousand British Coal miners
Question for the Eggheads could we reopen the coal mines extract the coal and they chemically break it down to either a liquid for cars and planes or gas
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/train-race-part-1
Gas is the Greenist form of Fossel fuel
Matter exists in 3 states SOLID ( coal wood paper ) LIQUID (oil petrol diesel ) and finally GAS (methane butane farts )
And gas has the lowest flash point
Atoms are free to move and for combustion with Oxgen which is a gas
Why a hotpoint Gas Hobb or a Potterton central heating combi boiler is more energy efficent than steam trains or Richard Briars and Felicity Kendals Wood burning Range stove in the Good Life
Why Diesel Deltecs and InterCity 125 with marine diesel engines replaced Steam Engines on the Railways
Liquid is basically compressed Gas at room temperature
Clarkson had to shovel in 2 tons of coal into Tornado to get it Edinburgh
Burning Coal and Wood lose heat breaking it down from a solid to a liquid to a gas and only then to CO2 and H20 And HEAT
Combusting gas gives the most fuel efficentcy for the same amount of C02 and water therefore
It the Greenest and the cleanest no solid residue
Clarson got covered in soot on that steam train
Total complete combustion
Most amount of energy from natural gas
And the cheapest ( only need to drill it and pipe it )
Nature has already broken it down to its most combustable form
Enviromentalists cant object
I don't think its so much a "dash for gas" as a drink in the last chance saloon! The absence of any coherent energy policy from this and previous governments mean that the days (and nights) of darkness are getting closer and closer. The only hope is that shale gas will be the cavalry arriving at the last minute, but still there is a veil of secrecy drawn over the subject and myths abound. I couldn't even find a reference to the composition of UK shale gas but I did find some compositions for the US stuff and they are very, very variable. Apart from the usuals - bit of H2S, bit of CO2, bits of heavier hydrocarbons etc, there seems to be large amounts of nitrogen. That means, to meet a sales gas spec, cryogenic separation of the N2 - complicated, expensive and long-lead. So we had better get started, and soon. As for the green nonsense - reflected in my newspaper today, claiming that cyclics present - especially benzene - will be carcinogenic for up to half a mile from the discharge point - please note that (a) all naturally occurring hydrocarbons have all kinds of nasties in them in trace quantities, shale gas will be no different - nothing ever ever ever could be nastier than the old coal gas processing but we're still here, and (b) there's nothing likely to be present that can't be removed by chemistry to meet environmental standards - leave that to the chemical enginneers and, for God's sake, get out of the way.
Vernon E