Wednesday
Apr102013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Myles, Nigel and Bjorn
Apr 10, 2013 Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 Channel Four news tonight looked at global warming in the context of the cold and long winter we are still enduring. Myles Allen, Nigel Arnell and Bjorn Lomborg were interviewed.
The video can be seen here.
It was interesting to listen to Nigel Arnell, who specialises in climate impacts, talking almost solely about policy responses. This was to some extent dictated by the questions he was asked, but if journalists don't understand the extent of a meteorologist's expertise then it does go a long way to explaining the pickle we are in. The scientist as policy advocate is not an animal that we should be encouraging.
Reader Comments (75)
Re Latimer Alder 8.14am "not with a bang but a whimper"
For the last five years or so I have regularly written to my MP ( a paid up subscriber to CAGW) drawing his attention to many sceptical items on this and other blogs. I even sent him a book Joe Fone's Climate Change to read on his hols. He has always been meticulous in replying or getting some government department, usually DECC, to reply.
Just recently he has stopped this five year old practice and has gone totally quiet on me.
Could it be something I said or is this evidence of the whimper?
"Nigel Arnell's research focuses on the impacts of, and adaptation to, climate change. He has a particular interest in impacts at the global scale, at hydrological impacts at the catchment scale, and at the use of climate information in adaptation planning"
A friend of mine had an interest in the impacts of form in the outcome of horse races - he was useless and lost his pound every time.
Anyone selling (in the broad sense) advice on climate impacts is just a snake-oil salesman.
Farmer Wainwright: 'I've been here since '88 and I've seen nothing like it..'
Well - that covers the whole history of climate in the UK, doesn't it..?
Well cone C4, but they still had get the "unprecedented" word in early to describe winter, and farmer who's "been here since 1988, and it's the worse I've ever seen". Golly. That bad....
And a little media stunt: releasing "our own weather balloon..." He finished with a very confident "temperatures WON'T be going down." "He" is duly noted as being Tom Clarke, science editor. The first science editor at channel 4.
Economics-wise, Lomborg has his head screwed on, even though he believes the standard line on CO2.
He is consistent and always convinces me of his honesty. He has also suffered victimisation as a result of not toe-ing the green line.
I thought the other two did come across as thinking they were losing the public argument, especially the "we won't be acting in isolation" one. Myles Allen does seem to have learned something about not exaggerating since the last time I heard him.
Generally cause for cautious optimism.
He has also suffered victimisation as a result of not toe-ing the green line.
Ain't that the left all over? There is one permitted view of anything and if you don't take it you need to be killed.
Full transcript of yesterday's Channel 4 news item now available here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130410_c4
I was under the illusion that my statement about using wind to supply power to the National Grid increased CO2 production was common knowledge among my learned friends.
Fortunately, within a couple of minutes of using Google, I found this article:
"Excellent piece on the parliament web-site explaining why wind farms don't reduce emissions"
with this link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm
(Many thanks to Roger Helmer, UKIP MEP, for providing the critical intermediate link to this document.)
It is not one of those pal reviewed papers, so revered by the pals. Instead, it is a Memorandum from a body trying to come to terms with what it has unleashed with its 2008 Climate Change Act on the Country. Thanks a lot, you are worth every penny! ::)
Taking information from the article, to produce 1 MWh, the amount of CO2 produced by:
a CCGT, in continuous use, will 0.4t.
an OCGT, used for 75% of the time, will 0.6t * 75% = 4.5t.
We can therefore conclude that using wind and an OCGT will generate more CO2, even before adding in the amount of CO2 generated by building the windmills with their concrete bases and metal towers, maintaining them (including fuel to get the maintenance team on site) and using power to turn them when there is no wind. There are also the extra costs of providing infrastructure, including power lines, to transport the power to where it is needed.
I would also expect that if the OCGT's "generate 50% more CO2", then the fuel consumed would be around that much greater as well, making the electricity that much more expensive. Without doubt, it's a lose-lose-lose-situation!
This is a fuller quote, and provides more information, though the document itself provides even more detail:
"As a consequence of the need for power to match demand, ‘back-up’ plants are run start/stop to match the wind’s fluctuations. We might like use hydro, but UK has insufficient hydro resources, so the ‘back-up’ is probably a fossil fuel plant; usually gas. An open cycle gas turbine [OCGT] is effectively a jet engine, and a combined cycle gas turbine [CCGT] is this jet engine in which the heat from the combustion is collected and used to make steam to drive a secondary generator. The CCGT produces about 0.4 of a ton of CO2 per MWh. This is 50% more efficient than the OCGT that may produce same amount of power but uses more fuel and this results in about 0.6 ton of CO2 per MWh. When CCGT machines are used to ‘back-up’ wind power the gas plants are switched on & off [to match the wind] often do not reach a sufficient temperature to make steam and thus operate as if they were OCGT plants. Knowing this some powers suppliers just use OCGT as ‘back-up’ to wind.
Since the wind turbines only operate at about 25% of their rated or name-plate capacity* the ‘back-up’ has to supply the remainder, of 75%. Since, as shown above, a gas turbine operating stop/start produces approx. 0.6T/MWh the average is [75% x .6=] 0.45ton per MWh. This is more CO2 [and SO2, Nox etc] than would have been produced by an efficient CCGT working full time; 0.4ton per MWh. On the attached sheet I have shown this together with the costs of generating electricity by wind power. My sheet paraphrases the situation but detailed studies showing little or no saving in CO2 etc as a result of wind power have been produced by Prof G Hughes of Edinburgh University ["Why is wind power so expensive?"]. A Dutch study by Udo, de Groot and le Pair comes to similar conclusions as does the BENTEK report for Colorado and Texas,"
O/T
Does anyone know, please, if Pat Swords High Court case in Ireland did actually proceed ? I think it was due to be heard yesterday April 11
I too saw the Ch news interview, and thought that Nigel Arnell was talking out of his bac***ide.
Sean O'Connor: The reason I don't want Lomborg anywhere near energy policy is that he still believes CO2 drives climate, even if he realises the efforts to mitigate it are far too expansive and innefectual. Until that myth is finally busted, we will suffer costly policy after costly policy to try and 'tackle ' it.
On Philip Bratby's climatologist student comment, I was blocked on twitter yesterday after telling someone who believes in the greenhouse effect by back radiation, and apparently teaches physics to undergrads, that it's impossible for a cooler body (surface) to heat a warmer body (atmosphere). He claimed CO2 is like a duvet that warm us by back-radiation!! Utter hogwash. A duvet/blanket slows convective cooling, that's it. He also believed melting Arctic sea-ice raised sea levels!! I pity his poor students.
So, anyone involved in setting energy or economic policy that believes in the climate-changing powers of CO2, i.e. the greenhouse effect, is a complete no-no as far as I'm concerned.
Since politicians are rather found of focus groups why don't they set up one (or several if they wish) to find out how much typical taxpayers would be willing to pay to reduce average temperatures by a twentieth of a degree?
I don't think they will be in any hurry to set up such focus groups. No matter how out of touch they appear to be, I am sure that most politicians realise that most people in this country would like slightly warmer weather most of the year round. Children would like some snow, of course, and it does look nice but even those of us who like snow would prefer warm weather for most of the year.
As mentioned above, Lawrence McGinty is for some reason hyping up the terror on ITV news. Last night he turned his attention to glacier melt and was giving the impression that sea level rises by the end of the century of 1 metre are possible blah blah. As usual there were lots of 'coulds' and 'might' but the emphasis is always on the alarmists' side with little or no balance. I already try to avoid BBC News - now I'm having second thoughts about ITV... Surely the lunacy will stop soon?
"hyping up"
That's the problem - a news item to the effect that nothing is going to happen isn't news.
Apr 11, 2013 at 11:00 PM | Robert Christopher
////////////////////////////////////
One must also add in to the equation, the life expectancy of these wind turbines. Evidence is now coming to light that their life expectancy is perhaps more in the region of 12 to 15 years, rather than 25 years. It follows that if they wish to keep the windfarm running, quite a bit more CO2 will be used in removing the failed old structure, recycling it, transporting to site and erecting the replacement wind turbine.
As I understand matters, there has not been one single conventional powered generator closed down anywhere in the world because a windfarm has replaced it, and rendered it redundant! That one single fact clearly demonstrates that wijndfarms do not save CO2 emissions. This fact was available at the time the Climate Change Act was passed.
This begs the question, if windfarms do not reduce CO2 (or not by any significant amount), what is the point of them?
1.
It cannot be that they are more reliable than conventionally generated elecrity, since they are not. They produce intermintent power and the experiences of the last few winters, when the UK was under a blocking high, they were for a period of about 6 weeks producing only about 1 to 3% of installed capacity. I monitored their output on a daily basis during those blocking highs and very occassionally they peaked at 8% of installed capacity, but that was rare.
2.
It cannot be that they are cheaper to build than conventionally generated power, they are not. First, it is now apparent that in use, theuy only produce about 25% of installed capacity, such that to produce about 16GW (ie about 30% of UK's energy demand) one has to build and instal 64GW of wind turbine capacity. Second, here is no economy of scale and never will be since these are individual units (unllke transistors being incorporated into one single integrated chip) and require almost unit by unit handling. Indeed, if they are installed too close together, one gets adverse effects of wind shaddow and a drop off in efficiency, so they have to be sprawled out over a large area. They will never be made much more efficient since we have already reached the zenith of generator design (unless using supercooling, super fluidity and super magnetism) and blade propellor design is well understood. It is very unlikely that radical improvements in efficiency will be forthcoming in the next 10 to 30 years.
3.
It can't be that their life expectancy is longer than conventionally generated power, it is not. The life expectancy of conventionally generated power can be between 40 to 60 years, whereas wind turbines have a life expectancy of less than 25 years. Indeed, recent evidence points to half that life, around the 12 to 15 year mark. Therefore they will require rebuilding and replacement far more often .
4.
It cannot be that they require less maintenance and are cheaper to maintain compared to conventionally generated power stations, they are not. The costs of maintenance is high because of their individual structure, and it is dangerous. Already, more people have been killed directly by wind turbines than directly by nuclear power generation (although with respect to the latter, there is much debate on indirect death toll).
5.
It can't be that they produce power cheaper than conventionally generated power. They do not, and cannot as long as they require virtually 100% back up by conventionally generated power stations. Further the costs of connection to the grid is immense, due to the individual nature of the turbine and the low combined output of the windfarm as a whole, and the fact that they are situated in remote areas. To get 5GW of wind generated power costs a lot more money than 5GW of conventionally generated power, a fact which is obvious from the mere fact that one requires the conventionally generated power in any event as back up.
One does not design a system which is at its least efficient when it is being called upon to deliver maximum power. In the UK, maximum demand for energy is in winter, especially winter nights. The past few winters have shown that when power demand peaked during the blocking highs, wind generation was at its least efficient! Thuis is a design fail from an engineering perspective.
In summary, no one can make an engineering case for wind farms (since least efficiency often coincides with peak demand, and due to the fact their is no economy of scale, in fact quite the reverse), nor an economic case (since the cost per GW of power generated is more expensive than conventionally generated power), nor an environmental caase (since windfarms do not result in less CO2 emissions, and they are a blight on the landscape, and at best will reduce global temperatures by 1/200th of 1 degreeC ). The way to the future is not to embrace the past, especially a past technology which was rendered redundant long ago.
There is simply no case for wind on any sensible criteria. They are simply a subsidy cash cow that benefits few at the expense of the majority, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable in society. All windfarm subsidies should be scrapped immediately with no compensation given to the energy companies or land owners. If wind farms can stand on their own two legs, then they will continue in operation, if they cannot this madness will be halted much to the benefit of the vast majority.
I consider that history will judge this particularly madness harshly. I consider the windfarm policy to be amongst the greatest examples of derilict of public duty by MPs.
Apr 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM | richard verney
Indeed! It is worse than we thought!
Maybe, the quicker the demise, the sooner policies will change!
I have reread the linked article in my Apr 11, 2013 at 11:00 PM and found these gems, and the name of the memorandum's author, who needs a pat on the back, if not a place at the heart of national policy making:
Why are we, the long suffering taxpayers and payers of green tax on fuel, still voting for the LibLabCon Global Warming Alarmists?
There are a few who have had the courage to see the light, such as
Douglas Carswell MP (Con):
and Labour's Graham Stringer MP has also been a long standing advocate of hard science.
so hats off to them, but UKIP is still the only main party to have a long standing sensible energy policy. Its 2010 Manifesto, Empowering the people , in Chapter 11, Energy & the Environment, does show what needs to be done.
As this document is now three years old, it probably needs a bit of an update. For example, there have been new developments in the current national plans for nuclear power, with the last item here (added in February) telling all:
However, at the heart of UKIP policy is the Repeal the UK’s Climate Change Act and the return to a Department of Energy. Without that, very little can change.
What are the other three main parties going to do? Interesting times ahead!
BB
Do you really think that C4 would have run such a programme if we had had a warm winter? It might be weather and not climate, but enough weather becomes climate...
Anthony Hanwell (April 11th; 2.35pm) - I fear your MP has just got tired of covering his ears and going: 'Lalala I can't hear you'....
I have just found a later UKIP document discussing energy policy, Keeping The Lights On, published last September.
Still waiting for practical solutions from the other three main parties!
Anyone see this Daily Mail item?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2307333/Is-UK-heading-Arctic-winters-Met-Office-calls-urgent-meeting-discuss-melting-ice-causing-Britain-freeze.html
Robert Christopher
Since the game seems to be reference tennis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions
@entropic
You can read all about Julia's latest foray at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/12/english-winters-back-to-normal-julia-blames-global-warming/
Anyone see this Daily Mail item?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2307333/Is-UK-heading-Arctic-winters-Met-Office-calls-urgent-meeting-discuss-melting-ice-causing-Britain-freeze.html
Apr 13, 2013 at 12:25 AM Entropic man
What's your take on it, Entro?
Martin A
Nice to see the meteorologists looking for ways to improve their understanding. The jetstream has spent a lot of time in unusual positions of late. It would be nice to know why, not to mention useful in improving forecasting.
From a UK perspective, there has been a tendency in recent years for the Arctic Oscillation to stick in negative mode in Winter and hold high pressure over the high latitude North Atlantic. This has pushed the jetstream South and given us colder, more continental, Winters. Whether this is stochastic or a response to the observed changes in the Arctic is the sort of question the Met Office is probably looking to answer.
The 0.8C global warming shown in the 20th century instrument record was fairly straightforward to measure. It is becoming clear that the resulting climate change is a lot more complex than anyone expected.
It is becoming clear that the resulting climate change is a lot more complex than anyone expected.
I've pretty well become convinced it is an impossible-to-analyse system. I musty re-read what Richard Feynman had to say on calculating liquid flows.
I've pretty well become convinced it is an impossible-to-analyse system. I musty re-read what Richard Feynman had to say on calculating liquid flows.
Apr 14, 2013 at 9:53 PM | Martin A
Perhaps you give up too easily. Aircraft designers are getting a lot of juice from aerodynamic models.
The main limitation of fluid flow and climate models is the amount of number crunching involved, something Moore's Law is helping to make easier.
What a relief to be back in the westerlies! That biting East wind lost its novelty weeks ago.
Driving between 5 foot snowdrifts outside Belfast on Easter Sunday was an unusual experience.