Bishop Hill The green stupor
Jan 20, 2014 EU Jon Snow, the terribly right-on host of Channel Four News reports from an unidentified energy conference and has some interesting things to say about climate and energy policy:
There were a number of big business leaders and European civil service technocrats present. The sum total of our deliberations was that European energy policies and practice are in chaos and we collectively face dangerously expensive supplies, as well as the increasing threat of grave shortages...
In our discussion, the answers to this crisis were grim. The first was for Europe to get fracking, right now, wherever shale gas exists. Going nuclear is a major option too, irrespective of disposal threats. Reconsidering coal was even talked about.
But there was a frightening enthusiasm to terminate all green levies.
Not before time, but whether the voicing of such opinions will awaken our political masters from their green stupor is another question altogether.
Reader Comments (41)
>But there was a frightening enthusiasm to terminate all green levies.
Frightening ???.
As usual what a
reporternarrativer says reveal more about them, than what they are reporting about.I'm not remotely frightened by the prospect of terminating all green levies.
Bring it on, I say!
and what about those feed-in subsidies while they are at it!
The only frightening thing is that our government will not even consider terminating green subsidies till the lights go out.
The technical name for this conclusion is 'reality'. But G.Watkins is right, the lunatics won't ditch subsidies.
Perhaps Mr Snow should stop to consider where green levies have got us? As a journalist, he might also consider working out the expense and the concomitant benefits - assuming there have been any, of course.
John Snow has never been an objective presenter of Channel 4 News. He has made sure that his team of presenters are all green alarmists.
That final line by Snow sums up his and Channel 4 News's swooning wonderment with everything 'green'.
Snow would have much preferred a flight from the reality of the current energy chaos and a re commitment to throwing ever more billions at useless renewables, using money ripped off feckless taxpayers. Now that would have sent him home with a smile on his face!
2014 is starting to look like one of the good years!
'Frightening enthusiasm...'
Hands up all those 'frightened' at the prospect of ending green subsidies...
Marginally off-topic - wind today - 0.59% of electricity demand (same as pumped storage, for goodness' sake..). Good job its not a cold winter's day, eh....?
'Reconsidering coal'..?
Germany's done it already..!
I thought France had gone nuclear, despite "disposal thereats", whatever those are.
I bet Jon Snow is the sort of person who would buy a coal-driven (sorry - electric) car...
There's one certain thing about John Snow. His carbon footprint must be as big as Al Gore's. At the drop of a hat he's off to exotic places to cover Mandela's funeral or the US to cover some minor political happening, or anywhere else in the world that something is happening that requires his personal reporting and that takes his fancy. Do as John Snow says, not as he does.
It hurts when reality bites your butt
I thought France had gone nuclear, despite "disposal thereats", whatever those are.
Jan 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby
France went nuclear under deGaulle's guidance; Sadly very few central nucliare have been built since. As a consequence France will likely have to close 22 nuclear stations in the next 10 yrs with nothing to replace them but windmills and solar panels.
Hollande has refused fracking because he needs the supports of the greens.
If Europe ruins itself it will save the amount of CO2 emissions that China increases every year thus making zero difference to the global total, it will make Jon snow less downhearted and bring him some joy. Who needs a better argument than that?
Once the EU dump the climate change agenda our
EU puppetgovernment will do the same.diogenese2: no better argument needed. See my comment on the Snowblog - rather less succinct than yours!
I suggest a few other comments might help. Keep them courteous.
Jon Snow: I left the conference downhearted.
So some good news at last!
The Age of Stupid is being left behind and the Inconvenient Truth is at last dawning on people!
Stephen Richards
Correction: Hollande thought he needed the support of the Greens just as in 97 Blair thought he would need the support of the Lib-Dums. In fact the Left had a comfortable majority in the National Assembly without them but Hollande didn't have the wit to tell them where to go.
I doubt it's a mistake any party will make again.
I regularly have a frightening enthusiasm to terminate Jon Snow.....:o)
Mike Jackson/Stephen Richards
Hollande is going to have to do something spectacular to get back in, 23% approval and falling last time i looked. Bit of a push from the right in this part of Haute Vienne for this years elections to the extent of getting expats to enrol for those we're eligile for.
@ .... irrespective of disposal threats.
Translation:
a) Bury it, then walk away and hope for the best over semi-geological timescales (hilarious).
b) Stewardship and remediation over semi-geological timescales (go on, price in even a skeleton staff over that timeline)
Nuclear: a problem looking for a solution.
Still, a great technology provided they don't blow up, and everyone knows they won't from now on, right? Less radioactive pollution than a coal-fired station, or even a ship-load of bananas, apparently, or was it sky pixies,
More than 60% of the rise in CO2 emissions since 2000 is due to burning of coal to produce electricity and heat. This rise in emissions is occurring in ASEAN countries.
In China, the scale of coal in the economy is simply incomparable to fuels elsewhere. Replacing coal with gas in Chinese power generation would require twice the volume of all global LNG trade. Coal therefore will continue to play an important role in economic growth and energy security worldwide.
If just the new coal plants under development in India and Indonesia were instead to be completed using latest technology it would save as much CO2 as all the wind turbines in Europe combined. Technical subsidies by Europe to achieve this would be a far cheaper means to tackle climate change than are current policies.
The scale of the growth in coal consumption in Asia is staggering. It really makes a mockery of Europe’s de-carbonization policies. For energy security reasons the UK should have built a couple of modern efficient coal plants just like Germany and Holland did within EU limits and thereby save on energy bills. However, Friends of the Earth stopped the Kingsnorth plant in Kent from being developed by E-on in 2009, and shortly after the UK government essentially blocked any new coal plants without CCS and introduced a stealth carbon floor tax penalizing coal further. Meanwhile any progress on CCS is essentially stalled and the UK faces power curs in 2014/2015. One reason for that is that 30-40% of the output power is needed to drive CCS !
Whenever you see the Keeling curve of ever increasing CO2 levels just remember that nearly 2/3 of that is now due to coal burning in Asia. What can be done about it? In the short term nothing can be done and carbon emissions are sure to rise for the next few decades whatever we do in Europe.
I was an early enthusiast for "renewables", as were many of my oilfield engineering colleagues.
Many of them got involved. As well as talking to them I often attended renewables shows and talked to people there about the technologies they represented.
That was over ten years ago. Over time, all those I knew who got into renewables are working in oil/gas. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the favoured technologies of wind, sun and wave had so many inefficiencies and technical challenges of such magnitude that they were unlikely to ever be a viable alternative except perhaps for small, completely "off-grid" communities as an adjunct to diesel-fuelled generators.
I believe any technically literate journalist who really investigated would reach the same conclusion - but instead we got ever-increasing puffery and press releases implying that this Green technology was not only viable and cheap but available now. You can't blame the public being fed this guff for thinking something fishy must be going to suppress this wonderful carbon-free future, nay, present.
There are still a few out there preaching that fossil fuels are of the past. Maybe, but wind, wave and solar are the real dinosaurs and the public figures who backed them will start to jump ship increasingly . Especially the celebs who like to be seen as "cutting edge" - they don't want to be saddled to turkeys so will quietly slip away and erase their memories.
Can't imagine many people watch Channel 4 News.
And I've just been watching BBC Midlands News this evening where they showed a B'ham architect (I think they called him) who had a ZERO annual energy bill. Apparently he had super-insulated his home, a standard terrace house that he had completely extended and enclosed in new build. Then he had covered a third floor extension roof with dozens of PVs.
He reckoned that not only does he not pay for his energy, he gets £2,500 a year from the government for what he generates. Thankfully, the reporter had the wit to ask him how much it all cost: £47,000, he said, and I'll recoup that in -wait for it...... EIGHT years! Oh yeah....I'd like to see that.
BTW: the guy's house was absolutely ugly, but he reckoned it was 'carbon-negative' and would still be so if it was placed in the Arctic!!
I find it inconceivable that the likes of Jon Snow have reasoned themselves into the
positions they adopt.
There has to be an ulterior motive. Why else would they so vehemently defend the
indefensible.
I am of the opinion that the abuse of the precautionary principle is at least partly to
blame.
Phillip Bratby
There's one certain thing about John Snow. His carbon footprint must be as big as Al Gore's. At the drop of a hat he's off to exotic places to cover Mandela's funeral or the US to cover some minor political happening, or anywhere else in the world that something is happening that requires his personal reporting and that takes his fancy. Do as John Snow says, not as he does.
You forget that a desire to "save the planet" by means of green policies is sufficient to off-set the carbon footprints of green supporters. We get to depend on wind turbines for our power and they get to travel.
Down here in Aquitaine there is a general feeling that Hollande is more than a big mistake. I believe that behind the present political administration there is a strong comprehension of the looming energy problem and TPTB realize something will have to be done soon, I suspect that EDF are slowly coming around to the idea that Thorium is a feasable alternative despite the fact that France vetoed the Thorium debate in the EU some years ago. It is a very complicated situation but ultimately France is wanting to be the first with Fusion, until that happens I reckon they will continue with Nuclear as it gives them almost unmatched energy security.
"..whether the voicing of such opinions will awaken our political masters from their green stupor .."
Maybe not, but a Votectomy might.
Translation:
a) Bury it, then walk away and hope for the best over semi-geological timescales (hilarious).
There is no particular need to bury it. It's emotion which drives the need to bury.
You could put it in the middle of Australia, and cover it sufficiently to prevent the leakage of radioactive gases.
What could happen to it there? Australia doesn't get big earthquakes, and anyway anything at surface level properly designed would just shake about a bit.
The problem with disposal is not practical, it's emotional. People like you make a big fuss about how dangerous it is. Sure it's dangerous -- but only if you go near it. It's not particularly dangerous if you box it up in concrete and leave it on the surface in a very isolated location.
I reckon we could give Australia, a major Uranium producer, a monopoly on the stuff provided it stores it. They win, we win.
Only people who lose are the Greens.
@do grow up
Nature seems to have solved the problem Oklo Nuclear Reactor just leave it for 2 billion years quite safely.
I know the BBC is hopelessly biased when it comes to energy and climate change, but I hadn't realised Jon Snow was another of the lefty bien-pensants (it's a long time since I watched C4 news). Predictable I suppose but nonetheless depressing. What is wrong with all these people? I continue to find it hard to understand how so many fell for the green line on catastrophic global warming and green energy, and how tenaciously they cling to their prejudices. Was it just an easy trendy way to be radical and save the world, an extension of being a veggie and going to whole foodshops and doing a spot of recycling - without actually having to give up anything like a nice job or a nice lifestyle?
Henry Passfield; Nick Grealy has a post up about the new WWF headquarters in Woking. One of his readers has dug into the details and found that this state-of-the-art "eco" building will meet only approx 13% of its energy needs with renewables. It has solar panels, special wind-cowls (like oast-houses), ground and air heat-pumps, etc.. Even so, using predicted figures (ie optimistic), it will still rely on fossil fuels and the grid for at least 87% of its energy.
I live a few miles away: it's an ugly concoction as well.
He's getting nailed in the comments to that blog. Only one we're all doomed the sky is falling think of the children true believer so far. Stand by for an invasion of them though, when the word gets out that the Green Team is needed there.
I had some contact with a project where holes were being drilled to bury nuclear waste.
What surprised me was how little space it all took up - when you read about it you get the impression it's like a giant slag heap from every reactor. One begins to suspect the "problem" is more than a little over-exaggerated, but hey, if it means more drilling (using radioactive sources to measure rock density of course), I'm all for it!
Mooloo
I reckon we could give Australia, a major Uranium producer, a monopoly on the stuff provided it stores it. They win, we win.
Why Australia? Why not Falklands? Bury them in Falklands and return the islands to Argentina. They win, you win.
Alternatively, why not bury them deep in ocean trenches in the Pacific or throw them over into volcanoes in Antarctica. Better still, let's drill ice sheets and push them into lakes 2 kms below. It is only a small amount. And no one goes there except climate scientists.
Or, build thorium reactors and "burn" the waste that way.
We've got plenty of thorium.